Flipping HBR's How Generative AI Could Disrupt Creative Work by David De Cremer, Nicola Morini Bianzino, and Ben Falk got me thinking about creativity. I studied art, among other things, at Vassar college, where I was to learn there is nothing more intimidating than a blank canvas, as Talking Heads note in their song Artists Only:
Let's go! I'm painting, I'm painting again I'm painting, I'm painting again I'm cleaning, I'm cleaning again I'm cleaning, I'm cleaning my brain Pretty soon now I will be bitter Pretty soon now will be a quitter Pretty soon now I will be bitter You can't see it 'til it's finished I don't have to prove... that I am creative! I don't have to prove... that I am creative! All my pictures are confused And now I'm going to take me to you
Creativity generates original and valuable ideas, concepts, and solutions by connecting seemingly unrelated concepts. Like science most artistic creativity is iterative building on but breaking away from traditional thinking to explore new territory to enrich the human experience. Enriching human experience sounds more over the top than I wanted, but creating anything is difficult because seeing links between seemingly unrelated ideas requires being open to some novel combination, some new thing and the multitude's derision and skeptism. High school never ends, so what could we create if we didn't care what others thought? The question is moot because most people want to be part of the tribe, part of an admiring multitude ready with praise and admiration. I've created a lot of stuff and don't remember such a reception. New ideas in Alton Pickens art class were examined with "what can I steal" acceptance.
In my Chicago studio a lifetime ago.
Business creativity encounters "devil's advocate" thinking where the status quo attempts to push novelty into an acceptable form, to blunt the power, force, and value new ideas bring. Innovative companies such as Apple, Tesla, and Amazon train creativity in by developing cultures where innovation and creativity are valued and rewarded. Creation of such a culture isn't easy or every company would have one, but how will AI and ChatGPT change corporate creativity and culture?
Rather than putting many creators out of work, AI will support humans to do the work they already perform, but simply allowing them to do it with greater speed and efficiency. In this scenario, productivity would rise, as reliance on generative AI tools that use natural language reduces the time and effort required to come up with new ideas or pieces of text. Of course, humans will still have to devote time to possibly correct and edit the newly generated information, but, overall, creative projects should be able to move forward more quickly.
HBR shares several possible AI-influenced creativity futures, and the "future" they described above is the one I'm experiencing. When I needed a new disruptive sustainable mouthwash brand to illustrate points in Modern Ecommerce, I asked ChatGPT a series of questions settling on EcoFresh, whose ChatGPT supplied tagline is fresh breath, clean planet.
OpenAI's chatbot isn't a panacea. I knew what to ask ChatGPT because I've been marketing everything from P&G bar soap to M&M's for forty years. While it would be nice to think forty years of marketing experience represents a barrier, it doesn't. The next generation of corporate creatives and AI prompt engineers will collapse what took me forty years to learn into minutes.
The experience of using ChatGPT is why I know it will take next-generation creatives seconds to surpass what took me so long. The coffee house's conversational nature of using ChatGPT is a big part of the AI tool's success. ChatGPT's Socratic method is to tap the web's big data and present it like two friends having coffee at Starbucks. As my friend ChatGPT says something, I listen and comment or ask another question. Is there a better "adult learning" model?
A second possible scenario is that unfair algorithmic competition and inadequate governance leads to the crowding out of authentic human creativity. Here, human writers, producers, and creators are drowned out by a tsunami of algorithmically generated content, with some talented creators even opting out of the market. If that would happen, then an important question that we need to address is: How will we generate new ideas? A nascent version of this scenario might already be happening. For example, recent lawsuits against prominent generative AI platforms allege copyright infringement on a massive scale. What makes this issue even more fraught is that intellectual-property laws have not caught up with the technological progress made in the field of AI research. It’s quite possible that governments will spend decades fighting over how to balance incentives for technical innovation while retaining incentives for authentic human creation — a route that would be a terrific loss for human creativity.
A second possible scenario is that unfair algorithmic competition and inadequate governance leads to the crowding out of authentic human creativity. Here, human writers, producers, and creators are drowned out by a tsunami of algorithmically generated content, with some talented creators even opting out of the market. If that would happen, then an important question that we need to address is: How will we generate new ideas?
A nascent version of this scenario might already be happening. For example, recent lawsuits against prominent generative AI platforms allege copyright infringement on a massive scale. What makes this issue even more fraught is that intellectual-property laws have not caught up with the technological progress made in the field of AI research. It’s quite possible that governments will spend decades fighting over how to balance incentives for technical innovation while retaining incentives for authentic human creation — a route that would be a terrific loss for human creativity.
While IA laws must play catch up, I don't see AI crowding out human creativity. Creativity requires risk. Large language models don't take risks; they blend answers from massive datasets based on prompts. Creativity and risk are upstream in the prompt.
There will be "unfair algorithmic competition" by those who learn how to craft Ai prompts and by those who know what questions to ask and why, but since creativity requires risk and risk is in the prompt, we've returned to HBR's AI-assisted future not locating corporate creativity in the model.
Creativity is different than math. Yes, creativity can get trained, taught, and learned. Still, risks associated with being creative such as the fear of rejection, placing oneself outside the tribe, and the ego such actions require, is uniquely human. That statement will seem naive and stupid one day, but it's my story today, and I'm sticking to it.
As always, email your thoughts, comments, and suggestions to martin(at)wte.net. Have a great weekend!
Saw this Design Theory video about the challenges creatives face after I posted.