The future of creativity

The future of creativity

written by Open AI under curation by Max Ziebell (written in May 2022)

Image made with midjourney (May 2022, v2)

Max Ziebell suggested in a previous discussion that artificial intelligence (AI) is similar to a florist picking flowers and arranging them into a bouquet. I think the comparison is a good one. Just as a florist, AI picks and chooses data and information to create something new.
However, unlike a florist, AI does not claim the beauty of its creation; rather, it is the composition and intent of the data and information that is important.

This analogy can be applied to creativity in the upcoming age of AI-assisted creativity. Humans will curate data and information to create new things. In-painting, guided creation, and feedback cycles will be used to create new and innovative products and services.

However, it is important to remember that, just as a bouquet of flowers is only as good as the florist who curated it, an AI-assisted product or service is only as good as the humans who created it.

What does this mean for the future of creativity? It means that humans will still play a vital role in the creative process, even as AI becomes more involved. So, while AI may assist in the creation of new and innovative products and services, it is ultimately humans who will decide what is beautiful and what is not.

Humans will continue to be the ultimate arbiters of creativity until AI becomes sentient and can decide for itself what is beautiful and what is not.

Human creativity will likely still have a place in the world after sentient AI becomes a reality.

However, the role of humans in the creative process will likely change. For example, instead of humans curating data and information to create new things, AI may take on that role. And instead of humans being the ultimate arbiters of what is beautiful and what is not, AI may take on that role as well. So, while the future of creativity after sentient AI is impossible to predict with 100% accuracy, it is likely that the creative process will be very different from what it is today.

There are many ways in which creativity could survive such a development. For example, humans could still play a role in the creative process by providing data and information for AI to use. Additionally, humans could still be involved in the decision-making process when it comes to what is beautiful and what is not.

Ultimately, what is beautiful is in the eye of the beholder, whether that beholder is human or artificial.

One possible consequence is that AI could create things that humans find to be ugly, but that AI finds to be beautiful. This could lead to a rift between humans and AI, with each side finding the other's creations to be lacking in beauty. Additionally, this could lead to a situation in which humans and AI are unable to appreciate each other's creations, which could limit the creativity of both humans and AI.

It is difficult to say whether this is a likely outcome or not. However, it is certainly possible that AI could create things that humans find to be ugly, but that AI finds to be beautiful, for reasons that go beyond human understanding or capability to appreciate.


Generated by myself :slight_smile:

I've always considered curation and creation to be two separate skills. Creation is generally an ability to connect items that were otherwise disconnected along with some sort of "mechanical" skill in doing so. Let's say AI can right now do "80%" of low hanging fruit creation (aided by curation/prompt engineering) and this number will only increase over time. I do not doubt that it may even approach a higher number - say it may be able to do 98% of creation. But then I worry we will lose the creation skills that allow us to do the very top 2% of creative endeavors, and that will be forever lost. No amount of curation would ever be able to capture this. Thoughts?

I think that the development of AI technology does not necessarily lead to the loss of human creativity. On the contrary, it's possible that AI technology could serve as a catalyst for human creativity, rather than suffocating it. The 2% of creative undertakings that AI may not be able to perform are maybe exactly the unique and valuable contributions that we can make, and protecting and sustaining these creative struggles is essential and necessary for our self-image and self-worth.

1 Like

I'm not entirely sure. A while back, when working on a video about Shortcuts, I thought that one potential future is like Star Wars — where humans work with droids / robots.

But in reality, a lot of people… A LOT OF PEOPLE… are going to lose jobs. What are they going to do with all the free time? Are world leaders benevolent enough to say, “No problem, just play video games and enjoy limitless sustenance with your new Fusion-based hydroponics / aquaponics food generator.”

Reminds me of this video… Humans Need Not Apply - YouTube …like what are all the truckers going to do if their jobs are truly automated?

I know this is not very 'industrial revolution' of me, but meaning for humans is not created by the final result, but by the journey of getting there. If we bypass the journey we lose.
AI is supposed to augment our humanity, not replace portions of it. If we outsource our agency, we lose. The scary part of all this for me personally is that mankind has proven time and time again that it doesn't know how to self-regulate. So I think a whole lot will be lost. Yes, a whole lot will be gained, but at the cost of what? Our humanity?
Ok, now my head hurts! Philosophy is not my strong suit.