The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in creative industries has sparked debate over the quality and cultural value of AI-generated content. Recent examples, such as Coca-Cola's AI-driven remake of its classic 1995 "Holidays Are Coming" Christmas advertisement and two Singaporean films—Trace Project and Bersama Majulah—produced for National Day, have drawn criticism for lacking emotional depth, featuring awkward dialogue, and delivering lifeless characters.
Phillip Lim, a Singaporean filmmaker with over 30 years of experience in film and television, argues that these concerns reflect a broader misunderstanding of AI’s role in content creation. While AI can mimic visual cinematic elements like lighting, facial attractiveness, and camera movements, he emphasizes that genuine storytelling requires human-driven characters with purpose, choices, and consequences—qualities AI currently cannot replicate in a meaningful way.
Lim suggests much AI-generated content functions more as a form of "background" or "disposable" culture, akin to elevator music: enjoyable yet inconsequential, filling space without demanding deep engagement. This type of content suits social media posts, corporate videos, advertising variations, and other uses where the priority is rapid and cost-effective production rather than artistic innovation. The ease of generating polished video or images with minimal technical know-how has lowered the barrier for content creation but also risks saturating platforms with low-quality material.
Data underscores this trend: in April 2026, the global music streaming service Deezer received approximately 75,000 fully AI-generated tracks daily, accounting for 44% of all new music submissions. Such statistics illustrate the industrial scale at which AI content can be produced, prompting concerns about quantity overshadowing quality. Lim compares this to the democratization of music production through tools like GarageBand, noting that accessibility does not equate to widespread artistic excellence.
Despite the influx of AI content, Lim believes that human artistry remains indispensable. He draws a parallel to the late 19th-century invention of player pianos, which automated musical performance but did not diminish the value audiences place on live human musicianship. Artistic works by creators with distinctive styles and perspectives maintain relevance because they embody intentional choices and expressive nuance that AI cannot authentically reproduce.
Lim acknowledges that AI will likely replace some routine creative tasks, particularly in generating generic images and stock footage for commercial purposes where originality is not essential. This shift may alter some job roles, such as graphic design assistants or stock photographers, but human decision-making about a work’s message and composition will remain vital.
In his own filmmaking practice, Lim uses AI tools to streamline pre-production tasks like storyboarding and costume visualization. However, he stresses that fundamental creative decisions—including performance direction and narrative meaning—are still firmly human responsibilities.
Lim also highlights ongoing concerns about intellectual property and unauthorized use of artists’ work in training AI models. While these issues merit attention, he argues they should be distinguished from broader questions about AI’s capacity to replace authentic art.
Ultimately, Lim contends that although AI-generated content will proliferate and transform aspects of creative industries, it does not signal the end of artistic expression. Instead, it challenges creators and audiences to reassess the value of human authorship amid a growing volume of synthetic material. AI fills some functions, but art persists because it conveys human experience and intention that machines cannot replicate.