#04: Creation + AI
A blurry line emerges…
If you don’t know it already, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is everywhere. And it’s been everywhere for a long time. From theoretical work on computing machines by British tech evangelist Alan Turing (creator of the Turing test) in the early 1930s to the successful checkers computer program developed by Christopher Strachey in the 1950s, AI has been in the making for near one hundred years. Long before Elon Musk and Sam Altman were born.
Anecdotally, the acronym “AI” has exploded in global vernacular over the past few years. I’d guess it’s mostly driven by the consumer-facing application that is OpenAI’s ChatGPT. A step-function upgrade in how humans search and receive information.
Now, I don’t plan to talk about how OpenAI, Perplexity, and Anthropic (as well as others) have upended traditional search engine optimization (SEO) as this can be the topic of a more technical blog. But what I do want to touch upon is the actual information and content that we receive from AI tools.
I’ve written about the growing imbalance between creation vs. consumption and AI is introducing a whole new level to it. Enter this scenario:
I asked ChatGPT to spit out an article that examines the relationship between creation vs. consumption and AI’s effect on both sides (I promise, that is not this article lol). Now, am I creating anything if I post this article to the blog? I’d argue not. There’s creativity and structure that goes into the input of the prompt, yet the output is purely an algorithmic output. Is prompt engineering considered creating? I don’t know. It’s tricky.
Here's another take:
I asked ChatGPT for a recipe based on the ingredients I had in my fridge. It churned out a recipe and you know what? It led to a delicious meal. So, I pose the question, did I “create” here if AI guided me along the way?
I’d say yes. The recipe was algorithmic, but the cooking (creating) and meal (output) took creativity.
As I write, I realize that my definition of whether leveraging AI can still be considered human creation depends on whether AI is used for the input or the output. In the AI article example, I input my thoughts to help ChatGPT form the article that I wanted to see written. Prompt engineering takes time, as well as skill and knowledge of how AI tools “think”. But I was less satisfied by the output as I didn’t do the heavy lifting of “creating”.
Now in the recipe example, I felt more fulfilled as a creator because I was able to tangibly create the output. AI just helped me refine the input.
In both cases, AI played a crucial role in leading to the output (written article or delicious meal). But the role I played as a human creator was different. For me, I consider AI input to be more closely aligned with creating, but when the output is formed by AI, I don’t feel the same creative fulfillment.
Perhaps it’s the Ikea effect at play here. Because I had a hand (literally) in creating the output, I deemed it more valuable. As long as the end result was achieved in both the article and the meal, I should receive the same level of fulfillment right? Oh wait, no. It’s because I’m human.