
When Code Performs: Arts Nonprofits Face A New Test
It was only recently that we laughed as AI-generated images gave us people with six-fingered hands. But now we watch digital actors question their own existence. Prompt theory, the viral trend that creates these AI reflections, is much more than online theater. It signals that machines can produce work so convincing that audiences confuse code with craft.
I tested the idea at home. My mother, 79, stared at a prompt theory compilation on YouTube and asked, "What do you mean these aren't real people?" My daughter, 13, rolled her eyes and said, "Dad, you're four months late."
For nonprofits, especially those rooted in human experience, this advance brings new pressure. If software can imitate the traits we call human, what happens to missions built on empathy, live connection and unique voice?
And no industry feels the pressure more than arts and culture. Music, film, design and writing now roll out of prompt engines at near‑zero financial cost. I think it is perhaps the most frightening time in human history to be a creative.
Six Risk Lines To Watch
1. Funding Drift: Grant panels chase novelty. AI creations look fresh, so dollars may move to tech pilots and away from live craft.
2. Workforce Erosion: The sector depends on part‑time artists. If AI replaces even 1 in 5 contracts, many will leave the field, draining skills that machines cannot hold, like improvisation or cultural context.
3. Intellectual Property Fog: Current laws have yet to catch up with the complexities of hybrid creative works. If a composer feeds their archive into a model that then writes a score, who owns it?
4. Authenticity Crisis: Audiences pay for a sense of real presence. Deepfake actors blur that line. If patrons feel deceived, they may pull back on both ticket purchases and charitable support.
5. Volunteer And Donor Fatigue: Many supporters give because they know musicians, dancers or playwrights by name. When art shifts to screens, personal ties can weaken and renewal rates slip.
6. Ethical Reputation Risk: In 2016, ING, Microsoft and TU Delft printed The Next Rembrandt, a data-driven canvas that looked like a lost work. They disclosed the method, yet the debate still rages over authorship and value.
Human‑Centered Responses
AI is not a fad. Telling artists to ignore it is like asking them to press CDs instead of livestream. A 2024 Society of Authors survey already shows that a quarter of illustrators and more than a third of translators have lost assignments to generative tools. Moreover, visual artists' median earnings in the U.K. have dropped 40% since 2010, with researchers calling AI "the straw that broke the camel's back."
Unless we truly are living in the infinite prompt loop simulation that Elon Musk mused about back in 2016, we do still get to choose our response. For nonprofit arts groups, I think the answer is avoid morphing into tech companies, doubling down on what only people can do: Bring other people together to create shared, in-person experiences.
Gen Z, digital natives by birth, are already signaling the demand. In a 2025 Live Nation study, 92% said they actively seek real-world experiences over online engagement, and 90% ranked "realness" and "authenticity" as life's top values.
Reinforcing The Human
With that in mind, here are ways that arts organizations can reinforce their human competitive advantage:
1. Make the process visible. Open rehearsals, studio livestreams and maker talks let supporters see sweat and revision. This narrative anchors value in effort, not just output.
2. Adopt authenticity labels. Create a simple tag system: "human‑made," "human‑AI hybrid," "machine‑generated." Clear labels help build trust. Show your supporters where that line is and then invite them to cross it with you.
3. Secure artist income. Offer paid residencies focused on craft that AI cannot mimic: site‑specific performance, participatory work or art rooted in local history. Tie funding to fair wages, not output volume. Quality over quantity.
4. Build digital rights clauses. Update contracts so artists keep training rights to their work or receive royalties if archives feed a model.
5. Create AI governance committees. Form small groups with artists, technologists, ethicists and board members to review projects. Publish the minutes. I believe that transparency helps discourage shortcut temptations.
A Production For The People?
As an example of a model embodying these concepts, here's a bold, human-first twist on the traditional season pass: Sell one production, experienced in five acts rather than separate shows.
1. Auditions: Open the doors to the tryouts. Subscribers witness unfiltered emotion and a wide range of talent. The casting room becomes the first stage.
2. Rehearsals: Offer a menu of rehearsal dates. Patrons drop in, watch scenes evolve and see how directors and actors solve problems in real time.
3. The Workshop: Bring the audience into the design studio. They watch sets, costumes and props take shape, and maybe even help craft a piece or two.
4. Tech And Dress: Give subscribers a seat for the first full run-through with lights, sound and orchestra. The tension and near-final polish make this a show of its own.
5. Opening Night: Finish with the premiere, where every earlier moment pays off.
Nathan Fielder's The Rehearsal proved that process can be riveting art. Nonprofit theaters and opera companies can borrow that insight, turning each step of creation into a ticketed experience that deepens engagement and sustains revenue.
No gimmicks. I believe this is a repeatable and cost-effective way to keep artistry thriving in an era that's been reshaped by history's greatest technological leap.
Summing Up
There's nothing wrong with using technology to assist in creating new work. But ideation must always begin in the human mind.
Make sure to control the narrative by showing patrons how the work is made and how much of the budget is going to living artists. In today's fast-paced culture, slower creation can actually build deeper ties—as long as patrons feel genuinely engaged throughout the process.
Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
My husband's ex-wife is all over him at events for their grandkids. How do I make it stop?
Welcome back to "Ask Amy & T.J." This week, they take on some grandma drama. Whether they're building an audio empire like Taylor and Travis or throwing the wedding of the year like the Bezoses, power couples inspire awe and envy. But mixing business and romance isn't always sunshine and roses. If you need advice on how to keep your relationship and your business afloat, send your question to askamyandtj@ If you want to hear more from Amy and T.J., check out their podcast. Amy & T.J., My husband has grandchildren from a previous marriage, which isn't a problem. However, their grandmother, Betty (the ex-wife), is always around. I've told him I can tolerate her being there for things like their grandkids' graduation, but not every time we get invited somewhere. For example, last weekend we were at a birthday party for someone on his side of the family (her ex-in-laws). Why is she there? And every time they meet, Betty is hugging and kissing on my husband. She can't just say hi and move along. I've asked him over and over to set boundaries but he acts like he doesn't know what that means. I told him I'm not comfortable going to our next event if she'll be there and he said 'OK, I'm going anyway.' Really? What do I do? — Gut reaction T.J. Holmes: Yes, this is partly about grandparents and grandchildren. But this is just a plain old 'Why is the ex always around' story. Amy Robach: This is about respect. It doesn't seem like your husband respects you, and certainly, the ex-wife doesn't. On further thought... TJH: We get very few no-brainer questions, but I think this is one. I'm trying to see your husband's perspective, but I just can't. I can't see why the ex-wife is of such value to him that it's worth upsetting you, the woman that he's declared he wants to spend the rest of his life with. Now, I don't know how long he and the ex-wife were married, or how close she is to the family and to the kids and grandkids. Maybe it was 25 or 30 years or more. But I still don't think that it's ever OK for any partner to treat their spouse the way he's treating you, constantly. This should be a simple conversation, ending with him saying, 'Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know you felt that way, I respect that,' and then you can move on. But I don't know why you don't insist that this stop. AR: Yes, it's about respect. Ask him to reverse the situation: How would he feel in your shoes? And it's not simply that Betty is there; you're saying that she is effusive and touching your husband. That would be an issue for any second wife. I think the reason your husband is continuing to allow this has to be his ego. It feels really good when you've got two women who are both fighting for you. Maybe he thinks he can placate everyone. But by letting this go on, he's saying he doesn't care what you think or what your feelings are. And how could you possibly have a relationship that way? If you don't respect or care what your partner thinks, you don't have a marriage. TJH: Another possibility: He's a guy. He's an idiot. Sometimes we can be clueless about such things. It doesn't seem like much of an excuse, but could he just be unaware? AR: If that's the case, you need to just make a decision. You're either going to have to accept this and let it go — which is really hard — or do something, which could mean leaving the marriage. The worst thing you could do is nothing. TJH: Yes, and tell your husband, 'This is what I need from you. Are you able to provide it?' We're grown folks. You look directly at him and tell him what you want. We don't do ultimatums, but you have to confront this. And at some point, you have to stop blaming him if you continue to stay. If he's not willing to work on it, that's a red flag that he doesn't care. Meanwhile, your husband, Betty and even you are not keeping your eyes on what's important: making sure there isn't tension for the family. What do the grandkids want? Do they love Betty being around? Are they uncomfortable seeing how she is around your husband? Amy and I have dealt with tension in our blended families before. You have to put that first. Figure out what you, as the adults, need to do to ensure the kids and grandkids are OK. AR: For certain special events, it's important for the grandkids to have all the people in their lives there. But it doesn't mean that Betty needs to be all up on and all over your husband. There can be clear boundaries of no touching. The final word TJH: Well, it's hugging and kissing. Maybe this is just a hug when Betty and the husband see each other, and that's it? AR: Then do a fist bump instead. TJH: The grandparents need to ... dab up? AR: Dab up! I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't want anybody kissing on you! Solve the daily Crossword

Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Vulcan Elements signs rare earths supply deal with ReElement Technologies
(Reuters) -Vulcan Elements, a North Carolina-based rare earth magnet manufacturer, has agreed to buy a supply of the critical minerals from ReElement Technologies that will be sourced outside of China. The companies, both of which are privately held, declined to give precise financial terms but said that the price is "significantly below" the floor of $110 per kilogram that the U.S. Department of Defense guaranteed to MP Materials last month for the two most popular rare earths. The contract was signed in mid-July, Vulcan said. Rare earth oxides are used to make metal that can then be turned into magnets for use in fighter jets, radar and other military applications, as well as consumer electronics. "This pricing will enable Vulcan to be competitive in global markets," Vulcan CEO John Maslin told Reuters. "We wanted to make sure the unit economics made sense." Indiana-based ReElement, which licenses its technology from Purdue University, will supply Vulcan with "thousands of metric tons" of rare earth oxides annually for five years beginning in 2026 from outdated electronics or from mine sites, said CEO Mark Jensen. ReElement says it can supply the rare earths to Vulcan below $110 per kilogram because of its use of a processing technique known as chromatography, which is different than the industry-standard solvent extraction used by many of its peers. "We are laser focused on cost," Jensen told Reuters. "We will see where the market goes, but right now we're focused more on the market price versus that price floor." Reuters was first to report last month that the Trump administration is considering extending that price floor to other firms, news that was relayed in a close-door Washington meeting attended by Vulcan, ReElement and others.


Gizmodo
11 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Despite Online MAGA Freakout About Her Jeans, Sydney Sweeney's New Movie Bombs
A couple of weeks ago, American Eagle launched a new ad campaign for its blue jeans line that featured actress Sydney Sweeney. In one of the ads, Sweeney weirdly broached the topic of genetics (she said, and I quote: 'genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color. My jeans are blue'), but, for the most part, the ads seems to be about how great Sweeney's posterior looks when she's wearing the company's denim. Not long after the jeans ads aired, the internet collectively lost its mind. One TikToker compared the ad to 'Nazi propaganda' and, soon, NPR had dubbed it the 'ad campaign that launched a thousand critiques.' CNN asked what America had 'learned' from the Sweeney 'situation.' Vox used the episode to wax eloquent about the 'unsettling legacy of the blonde bombshell.' Dr. Phil and Lizzo both got upset—for different reasons—and America's president, in a move that was very on-brand for him, issued a mispelling-strewn statement calling 'Sidney' the 'HOTTEST.' Meanwhile, a number of high-profile MAGA folks (including J.D. Vance, Charlie Kirk, and Ted Cruz) attempted to commandeer the topic, and use it to engineer a backlash to the supposed backlash to Sweeney's ads. Meanwhile, Rolling Stone magazine unveiled a timeline of America's conservatives efforts to 'claim' Sweeney for themselves as a cultural icon. Based on the national conversation we were all just forced to have about Sweeney and her jeans, one would've thought MAGA's collective lust for Sweeney could have easily been translated into hefty box office numbers for her newest movie, Americana. After all, if middle America is now collectively salivating over Sweeney, wouldn't they want to go see her every chance they get? Apparently that's not how things worked out, however. Sweeney's new movie only garnered some $500,000 during its opening weekend, The Hollywood Reporter has noted. Film critics have been lukewarm to positive about the film, with Vulture calling it 'a '90s-style ensemble crime movie that engages in a sly exploration of the iconography and mythology we use to define the country' and noting that the film is not 'particularly political' but that it is 'blessed with a fairly strong cast.' However, Americana's real problem would appear to be less the fact that its lead actress's brand endorsements have stirred up controversy and more about the fact that most people haven't heard of it. I go to the movies a lot, and am generally aware of the upcoming developments at my local cinema, and I can't say that I'd even seen an ad for Americana or heard much about it prior to writing this article. The movie's ad, which seems to offer a run-of-the-mill comedic crime romp, doesn't have much of a partisan bent. The internet is not a real place, but not infrequently, through a kind of alchemical magic, it can produce real-world events. Sometimes the web can stir up so much ideological turmoil that it spills offline and into the real world (just look at January 6th, if you need an example). The problem is that no one really cared that deeply about the American Eagle ad in the first place. A few pissed off leftist people online and a gaggle of MAGA commentators attempted to get everyone to care about it, and the news media carried the story into our collective consciousness, if only to have something somewhat entertaining to write about instead of the incessant horrors visited upon us daily by the Trump administration. For Fox News, it was a way to avoid talking about the incessant horrors visited upon us daily by the Trump administration, in a different way. Still, despite the best efforts of a select few to make the Great Jeans War of 2025 happen, America's heart just wasn't in it. A recent poll from The Economist/YouGov showed only 12 percent of Americans found the ad 'offensive.' We've been through a solid half-decade of having our minds messed with by the Extremely Online, and America may have completely exhausted its moral panics.