Why this conversation, right now
Generative AI can produce music, design, and copy in seconds — and every creative industry is scrambling to figure out what that means for quality, ownership, jobs, and price. Most of the debate is speculation and hot takes. This session is different: it's built on original, first-of-its-kind research that put AI to a real-world test and asked the people who actually buy creative work to judge the results.
The study behind the talk
I designed a controlled experiment inside the real advertising-music industry. Thirteen professional composers were challenged to score a genuine TV commercial using only AI — then hit with a surprise re-edit that forced them to revise under pressure, exactly as real projects do. Then fourteen senior industry decision-makers — the producers, creative directors and brand clients who hire and pay for music — evaluated the results in a blind test, not knowing that a few "AI" tracks were secretly made by humans. What they could and couldn't tell — and how they priced it — is the part that stops a room.
The questions we'll put on the table
- Where does AI actually help creative work — and where does it quietly fall apart?
- Can a machine meet a real brief, on deadline — or just make something that sounds nice?
- When the experts can't tell human from AI, what happens to "quality"?
- What does it do to the maker — to craft, identity, and ownership?
- The one everyone's avoiding: when AI is in the room, who gets paid — and how much?
The findings challenge assumptions on both sides of the hype. I share them live — not here.
