No, but…
We’ve all heard it, “AI will make you more creative.” But just as easily, AI can be looked at as a tool that externalizes creative thought, thereby reducing the need for humans to be creative. A more convincing pitch might be, “Sit back and let AI instantly create astonishing visuals or expert text.” In this scenario, instead of invigorating creativity, AI might lead to feelings of creative inferiority and stasis.
The word, “Instantly” gives me pause, implying a lack of labor in the creative process. Genuine creativity, however, develops through iterative steps, with insight and mastery accruing over time as individuals navigate the complex landscape of multiple thoughts. Short-circuiting this process with finished imagery might solve commercial problems but hinders creative enlightenment.
Consider a scenario where creative giants like Michelangelo or Hemingway are invited to a drawing or writing class. The instructor tells the students, “From now on you all have the talent of the masters! Micky and Ernie are going to do all your drawing and writing for you.” Such a scenario will likely leave students feeling diminished rather than elevated. While learning from the masters is invaluable, having them replace individual creative journeys is counterproductive.
So, if the goal is to enhance human creativity, what can AI do? AI can clarify questions and objectives. It can speak in a language that users understand. It can also foster collaborative ingenuity: supporting the synthesis of diverse ideas, facilitating collaborative dynamics, generating alternative narratives, and reviewing and validating ideas from diverse perspectives. In these ways, AI can serve as an enabler, inspiring and amplifying human creativity, rather than overshadowing or diminishing it.
Perhaps unintentionally, a bias for rationality has seeped into LLMs; AI would rather hallucinate than admit it doesn’t know something. It’s got a penchant for knowing-it-all, for “being right” unless proved wrong. Brilliant, unconventional ideas often emerge from paths initially deemed ridiculous and impossible. Without infusing human creativity to the mix, AI runs the risk of perpetuating the same old ideas. Instilling confidence in embracing failure and exploring the unknown is more valuable than offering shortcuts to being right.
I’ve collaborated for years with a computer scientist named Bob. Rather than providing instant answers to pesky problems, Bob has prompted me to discover answers on my own, to iterate, and to fail. As result, I’ve owned both the effort and insight gained, rather than becoming dependent on his expertise. Most of the emerging generative AI solutions lack as elevating an approach to knowledge transfer. The risk of dependency on AI for creative thinking is real and we should go into it with eyes wide open.
Many emerging generative AI solutions lack this elevating approach to knowledge transfer, raising concerns about the potential dependency on AI for creative thinking. To truly “make people more creative,” we need more “Bob-bing” (thoughtful prompts and questions) and “weaving” (time for integration) to open up thinking and foster creative solutions. Efforts like Pi and Khanmigo advocate for this path, shedding light on a journey that emphasizes empowering individuals, not algorithms, to attain new heights of creative excellence.
