As AI becomes more prominent in the daily lives of many people, whether they recognize it or not, I can’t help but wonder what effect it will have on humans’ ability to be creative and think for themselves. In How Generative AI Can Augment Human Creativity, Tojin T. Eapen, Daniel J. Finkenstadt, Josh Folk and Lokesh Venkataswamy, claim that “…The advantages [of generative AI]—the opportunities to dramatically increase the number and novelty of ideas from both inside and outside the organization—will make the journey worthwhile.” I disagree; I think AI is already becoming an easy way out for people who would like to create things they do not wish to work for or conceptualize on their own. I also believe that as it gains popularity, major corporations will turn to Generative AI to churn out unoriginal ideas quicker, produce more of whatever the algorithms favour, pay fewer people and maximize efficiency at the expense of creativity.
The article argues that Generative AI won’t replace creativity itself but it will promote divergent thinking, challenge expertise bias, assist in idea evaluation and support idea refinement. There are very strong cases for each point, however, the article is very focused on the benefits from a corporate or business standpoint — which makes sense given the article was published under the Harvard Business Review — except it ignores a lot of the concerns about how AI will impact creativity outside of an office. What effect will AI art have on people who have spent years, decades, even, perfecting a craft? Without the human touch and emotions behind a piece of artwork, there isn’t much to experience`. How will it affect young childrens’ ability to think for themselves, to be creative? I fear that one day, children will no longer appreciate non-AI generated art or they will they fail to understand why someone would still spend time and effort making something when computers could do it for them. Additionally, children are the future of the human population, and if they lose their will and ability to be creative, it will have a negative impact on society as a whole.
As a student who just completed their first year of university, I’ve experienced the rise of ChatGPT in real-time. It was concerning, hearing my teachers continuously remind students that we weren’t allowed to use any AI in our work as it would be considered plagiarism. Even my teacher for Writer’s Craft — a class where we didn’t have to write a single essay and you could write about almost anything you wanted, whichever way you wanted — had to remind our class that she could tell AI was being used in students’ work and that it would result in a failing grade. Students’ attempts to use AI to do their creative writing assignments for them didn’t seem like they were using it to help them summarize or condense their own ideas, nor did it seem to be elevating their writing. Instead, it seemed like students wanted to do less work because they couldn’t think of what to write, or they were convinced AI would write something that would get them a higher grade.
In university, my professors took the opposite position regarding the use of AI for academic purposes and actually encouraged us to explore it, within reason, of course. For two assignments in different courses, we were asked to use AI in different ways. For an essay, we were allowed to use AI to brainstorm as long as it was cited. On the other assignment, we used it to generate text about an art piece and then analyzed the response it gave us. The point of the assignment was to demonstrate how AI still lacks the ability to interpret. It couldn’t produce any of its own opinions about the artworks, and was only able to state basic facts or pull from other researchers’ writing.
I decided to do my own experiment and asked ChatGPT to write me a story about a goat and a dragon who become friends and travel the world together in a canoe. The short story ChatGPT created was written in an oddly formal tone while also using cliches or awkward phrases. Ultimately, the writing was not of a high quality. This is another issue with generative AI; it has a very difficult time producing creative work such as songs, poems, stories, photographs, drawings, etc. This is because AI only pulls from other preexisting works. Sure, it may piece together a lot of them to create something seemingly original, but there is no unique style or personal connection to the artwork. It’s missing the human touch, which can really make it feel empty or bland. The article even acknowledges, “There is tremendous apprehension about the potential of generative AI—technologies that can create new content such as audio, text, images, and video—to replace people in many jobs.” However, they believe that reality is very likely outweighed by the benefit of feeding the fire of capitalism, which is another issue with AI. Various governments as well as massive corporations will almost inevitably want to take full advantage of AI without disclosing the benefits they gain from it to consumers and the general public. The authors go on to explain that “…a clothing company that uses generative AI to create new designs for T-shirts could stay on top of trends and offer a constantly changing selection of products to customers,” which is harmful because it will further contribute to an oversaturated market of fast fashion and overconsumption.
My stance is that using AI is permissible in making your life easier without completely cheating the system, or to simplify a task you would have done yourself. An example of this would be using AI to suggest an itinerary if you’re traveling somewhere you’ve never been. While there are tour guides or travel agencies that can do the same thing, using AI to recommend a few places is, in my opinion, is morally acceptable, because it’s a first step and not the entire process. That being said, there is still a benefit to doing your own research as well as arranging to have a tour guide. Your guides have experience navigating the place you’re going to and they’ve likely received feedback from customers so they will have a better sense of which tourist attractions are actually worth it, including where you might want to eat depending on your budget and activities that may not be on ChatGPT’s radar.
So why should we, as a society, resist the temptation of using Generative AI as a shortcut to supposed success, and how do we do it? On the most basic level, using Generative AI can be unethical because it not only steals work from others, often without crediting all the sources from which it is taking inspiration, but it will likely also leave many talented people without jobs in the future. I’d advise staying away from AI when writing anything academic. It’s too easy to accidentally plagiarize when using AI-generated text because they don’t always list what articles they are taking ideas from or the extent of paraphrasing. Remember that even if you are plagiarizing by accident, it can result in very serious consequences even at the high school level and especially in post-secondary. Instead of relying on ChatGPT to help you brainstorm, try bouncing ideas off a friend or family member instead. Social media platforms like Reddit and Discord can also be useful because you can connect with other people around the globe and ask for opinions or inspiration for creative works. Other things that can generate ideas that don’t involve directly talking to someone are listening to music, watching movies, going for a walk, sitting in a cafe or library, people-watching, going to a museum or art gallery or looking on Pinterest. Keep in mind that art is about more than just looking or listening to something appealing, it can be a direct reflection of a culture, moment or period in time, it can be very personal, very relatable, or both simultaneously. Art produced by Generative AI can never compare to art made by a human because it lacks the depth of thought and emotion of an artist.
If you’re an educator or someone who works with youth and children, continue to encourage them to be creative the old-fashioned way. Technology can be useful in a learning environment but should not replace making up stories or colouring with pencil crayons and markers. In an article published in The Drum, Ricardo Diaz discusses the benefits and downsides of young children using AI, after conducting an experiment where he asked his seven-year-old son to experiment with an AI tool called Dalle-E 2. His takeaway was this: “Creative thinking is an essential skill that will need to be re-emphasized in schools,” and I couldn’t agree more. Generative AI may be all algorithms and a jumble of regurgitated information but children should still be prompted to think for themselves and enjoy creating.
Featured Image Source: Pixabay
