404: AI Not Found — Why Do People Hate AI-Generated Images?
404: AI Not Found — Why Do People Hate AI-Generated Images?
And why I'm not convinced AI has to be the enemy of creativity.
There's something quite appropriate about a picture of a confused bunny DJ staring into the distance with a giant:
404 — AI not found
above her head.
Because AI-generated images seem to have created something of a 404 error in the creative world.
Some people absolutely love them.
Some people absolutely hate them.
And some people seem to have decided that anyone who uses AI to create an image is personally responsible for the collapse of civilisation.
I'm somewhere in the middle.
And as someone who spends a lot of time around DJs, music, mixes, artwork and generally messing around with technology, I've been thinking about why AI image generation causes such a strong reaction — and whether we're looking at it from completely the wrong angle.
Why do people hate AI-generated images?
Let's start with the obvious one.
Artists.
For someone who has spent years learning to draw, paint, illustrate, photograph or design, watching somebody type a sentence into an AI generator and produce an impressive image in seconds can be incredibly frustrating.
Imagine spending 20 years developing your craft and then seeing someone write:
"Cute anime bunny DJ, colourful rave, surreal creatures, happy vibes"
…and five seconds later they've got something that looks like it belongs on an album cover.
It's easy to see why that might feel threatening.
There's also a much more serious conversation around how AI models are trained, where their training material comes from, copyright, consent and whether artists should be compensated when their work contributes to the systems being developed.
Those aren't trivial concerns.
They're important questions.
But I think there's another question worth asking.
Does using a new tool automatically make the result less creative?
I'm not sure it does.
A DJ probably shouldn't be the one complaining about technology
Think about how ridiculous it would be for a DJ to say:
"Real DJs use vinyl. Anything else isn't music."
Well...
That argument has existed for decades.
First it was vinyl versus CDs.
Then CDs versus digital files.
Then laptops.
Then controllers.
Then streaming.
Then stems.
Then AI-assisted tools.
And yet somehow we're still here.
Still arguing.
Still DJing.
Still dancing.
Technology changes.
The important bit is what the human does with it.
A DJ doesn't manufacture the turntables.
They don't manufacture the mixer.
They don't write the software inside the CDJ.
They don't personally encode every MP3.
The technology is the tool.
The DJ is still responsible for the choices.
And I think the same argument can be made about AI image generation.
Pressing a button isn't the creative part
Here's where I think AI image generation gets interesting.
Anyone can generate an image.
That doesn't mean anyone can create something good.
You can type:
"Make me a cool DJ image."
You'll probably get something.
But then what?
What colour should it be?
What's the mood?
What's the character?
What's the composition?
What's the story?
Is it funny?
Is it memorable?
Does it fit the music?
Does it fit the person whose name is going on the cover?
Does it actually make you want to click PLAY?
Those decisions are still yours.
And that's where I think the human creativity comes back into the picture.
AI is really good at giving you ideas
One of the things I find fascinating about AI image generation isn't actually the finished image.
It's the experimentation.
You can have an idea in your head that you could never draw yourself.
You might be thinking:
"I want a DJ bunny wearing headphones, surrounded by strange little creatures dancing to happy hardcore, with a completely ridiculous colourful background."
Normally you'd need an illustrator.
Or you'd need to learn how to illustrate.
Or you'd need Photoshop skills.
Or Blender.
Or 3D modelling.
Or a very patient friend.
With AI, you can start exploring the idea almost immediately.
And sometimes the first result is rubbish.
So you try again.
And again.
And again.
And suddenly you see something that makes you think:
"THAT'S IT."
That's where I think AI can be genuinely exciting.
It doesn't have to replace the artist
This is probably the biggest distinction.
There is a huge difference between:
"AI can make art, therefore artists are pointless."
and:
"AI is another tool that humans can use to create things."
The first idea is depressing.
The second is quite exciting.
Imagine a musician who can't draw being able to create artwork for their own release.
Imagine a small DJ who can't afford professional artwork being able to create something interesting for their latest mix.
Imagine somebody who has always had ideas for characters, posters, logos or album covers but has never had the technical ability to make them.
Suddenly they have a way of experimenting.
That's not necessarily the death of creativity.
It could actually mean more people get to participate in it.
But there is a line
And I think it's important not to blindly defend AI either.
There are legitimate things to criticise.
If someone takes another artist's work, deliberately tries to reproduce it, removes their name and pretends they created it themselves...
That's pretty shitty.
If somebody uses AI to flood the internet with thousands of low-effort images purely to make money...
That's not exactly helping the creative world.
If AI is used to deliberately deceive people into believing something was created by a human when it wasn't...
Again, that's a problem.
And if artists' work is being used without their consent or proper consideration, that's a conversation worth having.
"AI is a tool" shouldn't mean "anything goes."
There's another comparison I like: sampling
Music has already had this argument.
Sampling created some incredible music.
It also created an enormous number of copyright disputes.
But nobody seriously argues that sampling means musicians aren't creative.
A producer can take a tiny piece of an existing recording and transform it into something completely different.
The interesting part isn't simply the sample.
It's what they do with it.
AI is obviously different from sampling in important ways, and the legal and ethical questions aren't identical.
But the cultural reaction feels strangely familiar.
A new technology arrives.
People discover new possibilities.
People abuse it.
People complain about it.
Eventually we start figuring out how to use it responsibly.
And then someone finds a completely ridiculous way of using it that nobody expected.
Which, frankly, is usually the fun part.
The human is still the selector
And here's where being a DJ makes this particularly easy for me to understand.
A DJ can have 100,000 tracks.
That doesn't mean they're going to have a good set.
The skill is knowing:
which track
at which moment
for which crowd
and why.
That's curation.
That's taste.
That's experience.
That's personality.
And AI image generation has exactly the same problem.
You can generate 100 images.
Most of them might be crap.
The skill is knowing which one works.
Then changing it.
Tweaking it.
Rejecting it.
Trying something completely different.
Adding your own ideas.
Putting it together with your music.
And eventually saying:
"Yep. That's the one."
That's exactly how I ended up with this bunny
The image at the top of this article is a pretty good example.
It's deliberately simple.
Black outlines.
White background.
A bunny DJ looking completely confused.
A giant 404.
And the wonderfully boring:
AI not found.
It's not trying to convince anyone that a human artist spent six months drawing it.
It's a visual joke.
It's part of an idea.
And, most importantly, it exists because someone had the idea for it.
That's the bit I think sometimes gets lost in the AI debate.
The technology didn't decide that this image should exist.
A human did.
Maybe we're asking the wrong question
Instead of asking:
"Was this made by AI?"
perhaps we should sometimes be asking:
"What was the human trying to say?"
Because that's what we've always done with art.
We don't just look at a painting and ask what paintbrush was used.
We don't listen to a DJ set and ask which model of CDJ was used.
We don't listen to a record and ask whether the producer used an analogue or digital compressor on every channel.
The technology is interesting.
But ultimately it's the result and the intention that matter.
AI isn't going to make everyone creative
And here's another important point.
AI isn't a magic creativity button.
Give two people the same image generator and they'll probably produce completely different things.
One might make generic rubbish.
Another might create something genuinely brilliant.
The difference isn't necessarily the technology.
It's the person using it.
Their taste.
Their ideas.
Their sense of humour.
Their experience.
Their willingness to experiment.
Their ability to look at something and say:
"Nope. That's terrible. Try again."
Which, incidentally, is also an important skill in DJing.
The future might be more creative, not less
This is the bit I'm actually optimistic about.
I'm not convinced the future is going to be:
AI creates everything. Humans do nothing.
I think it's more likely to be:
Humans + technology + experimentation = new forms of creativity.
Artists will use AI.
Musicians will use AI.
DJs will use AI.
Photographers will use AI.
Designers will use AI.
People who have never considered themselves creative will use AI.
And plenty of people will decide they don't want to use it.
That's fine too.
You don't have to use every new piece of technology.
Some people still play vinyl.
Some people still shoot film.
Some people still prefer hardware synths.
Some people still make flyers with a photocopier.
And somewhere out there, someone is probably still insisting that a proper DJ needs two Technics and a crate of records.
And you know what?
They're probably having a bloody good time.
So, should we hate AI art?
No.
Should we blindly love it?
Also no.
We should question it.
We should challenge the companies building it.
We should have proper conversations about artists, copyright, consent and compensation.
We should call out lazy or dishonest use.
But we should also recognise that technology has always been part of creativity.
The synthesiser didn't kill music.
The sampler didn't kill music.
The drum machine didn't kill music.
Digital DJing didn't kill DJing.
And AI doesn't have to kill creativity.
Maybe the real 404 is human creativity
The thing I'd be most worried about isn't AI generating millions of images.
It's humans deciding they don't need to have ideas anymore.
That's the bit we shouldn't lose.
Use AI.
Don't use AI.
Use Photoshop.
Use a pencil.
Use a camera.
Use a phone.
Use vinyl.
Use CDJs.
Use a controller.
Whatever.
Just make something.
Have an idea.
Make something ridiculous.
Make something beautiful.
Make something terrible.
Try again.
And if you happen to create a confused bunny DJ in the process...
even better.
Because ultimately, technology isn't what makes something creative.
The human idea behind it does.
And that's one thing I don't think AI has found yet.
404 — Human creativity not found.
Hopefully that error never appears.
Written for MegaDJ — where electronic music, technology and questionable creative decisions happily live together.
🎧 Keep mixing. Keep experimenting. Keep making weird stuff.