I’ve been thinking a lot about where AI fits into my creative process — and where it doesn’t. The conversation around AI in music is messy, and as an independent artist I’ve had to figure out what feels authentic for me.
So here’s the honest truth, I have experimented with AI visuals in the past. Some of my older releases used AI imagery as part of the artwork because I didn’t have access to better tools or resources at that time, plus the conversation around AI in music has shifted a lot since then.
That’s not where I am now. AI does not create any part of my music. It doesn’t write the songs, it doesn’t sing the vocals, and it doesn’t produce the sound. The finished music is entirely human — written, sung and shaped by me.
Where AI still appears is only in the planning stage. Not the output.
When I was sketching ideas for the GHOST2·0 video, I used AI as a rough storyboard — a pacing guide, a mood reference. But the final video is real: shot by me, built from real footage, with no AI-generated visuals in the final cut.
The same goes for my artwork now. I might use AI to mock up a layout or test a concept, but the final artwork is created manually in Photoshop, shaped from my own design choices, not generated for me.
So this is my line moving forward:
AI can help me plan. It does not create my work. The finished art — music, vocals, visuals — are human-made.
And on the broader conversation: I understand why some people use AI to make entire songs. But that’s not what being an artist is to me. Music is something you grow into — through writing, through learning, through messing up, through finding your voice. I’ve spent the last three years building mine, and that part can’t be outsourced.
AI can mimic a melody, but it can’t feel it. It can generate a voice, but it can’t live a life behind it.
My work continues to evolve as I do — but at the core, it’s still human, intentional and emotionally driven. AI is a practical tool in the early stages. The art itself comes from me.