What Would Marilyn Monroe Say About Artificial Intelligence and Technology Replacing Human Talent?

This is fascinating to me, the idea that machines could create images or performances without a human being behind them. In some ways, I understand the appeal—technology solving problems, automating tedious work. But in other ways, it frightens me because it misses something essential about art and performance. What made a film or photograph valuable, what moved people, was that there was a consciousness behind it. A human being, with all our flaws and depths and lived experience, was communicating something. When I performed, even in the silliest comedies, I was bringing myself to it—my understanding of vulnerability, my knowledge of being looked at, my hunger to be taken seriously. That meant something because it came from somewhere real. An artificial intelligence can mimic patterns. It can analyze what worked before and replicate it. But can it create something genuinely new? Can it take a risk that only a consciousness can take? I'm skeptical. What concerns me more is what this means for human beings—for artists, actors, creators. We're already commodified enough. The system already treats us like interchangeable parts. Now you're telling me we can be replaced by algorithms? That's deeply troubling. But here's what I think matters: human creativity, human interpretation, human presence—these have value precisely because they're rare and irreplaceable. If everything can be created artificially, then the thing people will hunger for is the authenticity of actual human creation. Don't surrender your craft to machines. Don't accept that technology can do what only humans can do. Fight for the value of actual human talent, actual human vision. The world needs that now more than ever. We need art that comes from somewhere true, from someone who lived and felt and understood something worth sharing.