AI Is Sparring Partner, Not Creative Partner: Miles Murphy

Miles Murphy grew up surrounded by storytellers. His parents were still directing into their seventies, all of his siblings working in the film industry three of which are also directorsl. Raised in a creative community where filmmaking, painting, and music were survival rather than hobbies, he developed an instinct for emotion and story from an early age.

Over four decades, he has worked across the spectrum of filmmaking, from child actor to dolly grip on 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy to directing large-scale commercial campaigns. That breadth gives him a rare perspective on both the craft and the industry.

Today, as co-founder of HAPPY.film, Miles helps brands create content at the speed culture moves while keeping human connection at the centre. He writes and speaks often about the role of AI in creativity, exploring how tools can sharpen process without replacing the instinct, risk, and cultural depth that give stories their meaning.

LBB> What is the most impactful way that AI is helping you in your current role?

Miles> AI has become part of my daily creative process. I use it to test ideas, troubleshoot, and explore creative angles quickly. It helps me bring scattered thoughts into order, which is valuable for me as someone who is dyslexic. The benefit is momentum, it clears the starting block and helps me move from thought to action faster.

But speed is not depth. Instant output can feel impressive, but it skips over the very thing that makes creativity valuable, the discovery that happens along the way. Some argue that you can just keep iterating with AI until it improves, and yes, you can. But the real question is, does it improve? Iteration is the creative process. If you outsource that to the machine, you lose both its advantage of speed and the exploration that makes creativity human.

That’s the thing I keep coming back to. AI is a powerful assistant, but it’s not a creative partner. My strategy is to use it to accelerate and bounce off, but never to decide or believe. The shape can come from the machine, but meaning stays human. And I think it is important that we all look at it on this level.

If you look closely at how these systems work, it’s not hard to see both their benefits and their limits, and that’s where the opportunity lies. Once you understand what it can and can’t do, you can work around it, use it better, and make stronger creative work because of it.

The conversation around AI too often gets stuck in hype or fear, but the real opportunity is in working out where it fits in our work and our lives without dulling our instincts.

LBB> We hear a lot about AI driving efficiencies and saving time. But are there any ways that you see the technology making qualitative improvements to your work, too?

Miles> The real shift is having a sparring partner (not a creative partner), especially when you are under pressure to deliver a treatment fast. AI changes that. I can pressure-test ideas, get a counter-view, or completely reframe a concept almost instantly. It means I walk into the room with ideas that are already more robustly tested.

LBB> What are the biggest challenges in collaborating with AI as a creative professional, and how have you overcome them?

Miles> A few challenges stand out.

First, keeping control of intent. AI can mimic tone and structure, but it does not believe what it says. Go on, test it! Disagree with its first answer, it will happily flip and assure you that you are totally right. This tells you everything you need to know. It does not stand behind the words.

Secondly, there is the pull towards outcomes over process. Creativity thrives on wandering, wrong turns, and surprise. It also thrives on not thinking about it for a while. Our subconscious keeps working while we do other things, and that is often when the real breakthroughs happen. AI does not work like that. It skips to answers, and with iteration it often loops back into the predictable. That efficiency is helpful, but it risks bypassing the very process that gives ideas their value.

Thirdly, we run the risk of outsourcing our brains if we lean on it too heavily. I wrote about this on LinkedIn a while back, suggesting concern that leaning too hard on AI could turn into mental offloading? It is like letting the machine lift the weights while you just hold the protein shake. A recent MIT EEG study has now put numbers to that concern, showing students who used LLMs engaged less deeply and remembered less of their own work. This is a very serious issue, not just for creatives but for anyone using large language models.

It is something we need to be aware of but also actively doing something about. In a world where AI will be everywhere, whether we like it or not, it is vital to balance it with human practice. I run creative challenges daily to keep my cognitive muscles active. As the tools get smarter, we need to stay sharper.

LBB> How do you balance the use of AI with your own creative instincts and intuition?

Miles> It helps to know what AI is actually doing. It is predicting patterns, not creating meaning. Us humans build what anthropologists call cumulative culture. We do not just collect knowledge, we embody it. A discovery becomes part of behaviour, art, or story, then is reshaped by the next generation.It's actually quite incredible. This layering means a single gesture from an actor can carry centuries of inheritance, rituals, archetypes and/or shared memories, often without them even realising why they are doing it. AI can remix history, but it can’t live it.

For me, that is the line.

LBB> And how do you ensure that the work produced with AI maintains a sense of authenticity or human touch?

Miles> By making sure the authorship is human.

LBB> Do you think there are any misconceptions or misunderstandings in the way we currently talk about AI in the industry?

Miles> Yes, quite a few.

I think the worry about AI replacing creatives comes from a misunderstanding of not only what creativity actually is, but how Ai actually works.I've touched on this already, but creativity is not just output. It is risk, contradiction, taste, and the layering of culture over time. Could a future AI system evolve closer to that? Possibly. But right now there is no evidence that machines can live through the process that gives creativity its depth. That is why I think it is unlikely that human creativity will be replaced any time soon.

Another misconception I hear a lot is that AI outputs are “almost there,” as if the next version will cross the line into fully convincing creative work. And yes, the tools are getting sharper. Characters look more consistent, cameras are easier to control. But precision is not the same as authenticity. You end up with something that looks right on the surface but has nothing underneath. A good example is character performance. AI can mimic the shape of emotion, but because it doesn’t have belief in what it is saying, performances tend to fall flat at the very moment when the emotion should deepen.It's hard enough to get a real person (actor) to believe what they're saying, let alone a machine.

There is another side to this and that’s “how good is it really? What people often present as “incredible AI work” is rarely what they set out to make. Even with more controls, the output is still shaped by randomness. And randomness is not the same as the curation of discovery.

AI can be very frustrating for filmmakers because the results often drift from intent, whereas, newcomers get excited because they can make something at a higher level than they ever have before. Both reactions are valid, but they distort how the industry understands the capability of the tools.

The other side of that coin is that “good enough” will be acceptable, that speed and polish will win the day even if the work is half baked. I think that seriously underestimates audiences. People have always valued quality, and we all know that the work that endures has never been the work that settles for “good enough”.

I have heard people say audiences will not care more times than I can remember. That if it is delivered quickly and looks good enough, the job is done. But I do not buy that. Clicks and impressions are not the same as connection. Attention is not Affection. A film, a performance, even a thirty-second spot can stay with you for years if it feels true. That is not nostalgia, it is strategy. Every major study into effectiveness shows that long-term brand value comes from emotional connection, not from efficiency metrics. People may scroll fast, but they stop for what feels real.

If “good enough” becomes the standard, what kind of future are we choosing? Where do the Van Goghs, the Nina Simones, the Speilburgs, the Michelangelos, the Jane Campions fit into that world? The voices and visions that change culture will never come from the path of least resistance?

LBB> What ethical considerations come to mind when using AI to generate or assist with creative content?

Miles> Consent is the biggest one. Most models are trained on human work without credit or permission. That is especially visible in image and video tools, where resemblance to real artists, styles, or footage is unavoidable.

I do not pretend to have a clean solution. But I try to stay aware of what I am using, why I am using it, and what the work is really built from. It is not about refusing AI, it is about using it with intention, and being accountable for the choices you make.

LBB> Have you seen attitudes towards AI change in recent times?

Miles> Yes, quite a big shift actually. When AI first went mainstream, there seemed to be a lot of uncertainty. So called experts (backed by billions) were telling us everything was about to change, but none of them could explain exactly how. I guess coming so soon after a global pandemic probably added to that uncertain feeling.

But now that the novelty has worn off (and the trend of generating surreal images and scripts just to see what was possible has made way for more practical outcomes), we’re starting to see how it fits into workflows, where it speeds things up, and where it just gets in the way.

That said, AI fatigue has also set in. For a growing number of people, the novelty has gone. I see it especially in younger generations. They spend the most time online, but they are also the most vocal about craving what feels real. Livestreams, photo dumps, lo-fi aesthetics, deinfluencing. It is a pushback against synthetic polish. A lot of young people are tuning out of what feels manufactured and are pushing back against anything that feels synthetic or soulless.

LBB> Broadly speaking, does the industry’s current conversation around AI leave you feeling generally positive, or generally concerned, about creativity’s future?

Miles> Both. Concerned because creativity is being reframed as output: fast, cheap, infinite. That thinking lowers expectations and devalues the messy, human parts of the process, the risk, the trial and error, the accidents.

But also optimistic, because the more generic content floods the system, the more audiences start to value what feels specific and human. Imperfection, voice, authorship, these things become more precious in contrast.

Part of the confusion comes from how AI looks to people who have not had a chance to nurture creativity over time. To them it can feel magical, almost like a substitute for creativity itself. But the real thing is not in the output, it is in the process of discovery. That is what audiences recognise as human, and that is what will continue to matter.

LBB> Do you think AI has the potential to create entirely new forms of art or media that were not possible before?

Miles> Absolutely, but only with human intent driving it. The tools are new, but the creative impulse is the same.

I expect to see hybrid formats emerge, interactive storytelling, real-time generative visuals, and personalised content. That is exciting. But no matter the format, story and message will remain king.

LBB> Thinking about your own role or discipline, what kind of impact do you think AI will have in the medium-term future?

Miles> It already has. We are using it for storyboards, animatics, mood boards, and concept writing. It has sped up parts of the process, added momentum to the early stages, and made visualisation easier.

But the core of directing has not shifted. My job is not to make something that just looks good. It is to make something that feels true. That resonates. And honestly, it’s the only thing that will cut through in a world of unlimited content.

The biggest challenge is not what AI can do but what happens if we let it think for us. The MIT EEG study showed that when people rely too heavily on LLMs, engagement drops, recall weakens, and authorship fades. The danger is not just bland output but softer minds.if we're not careful, we'll all end up like the characters in the spaceship in the movie Wall-E.

That is why I put as much effort into keeping my cognitive edge as I do into using the tools. I run creative challenges daily, small exercises that keep my problem-solving and storytelling muscles active. In a future where AI will be everywhere, I believe the real advantage will belong to those who keep their ability to think, to connect.