Not Just a Great Spielberg Movie

Like everyone else in the creative industry, I'm frequently asked for my opinion on Artificial Intelligence. I thought it was an underrated Steven Spielberg movie. In particular, I thought Jude Law gave a nice performance.

Alas — the other thing. When it comes right down to it, AI has been part of our lives longer than we give it credit for. Gizmos like Siri or even predictive text reflect some level of AI technology. But only recently has AI begun to "create" art or "write" content.

As a designer, I don't feel threatened by AI. I've actually used it quite a bit. It's especially helpful on video projects that require storyboarding at early stages.

Even still, I've resisted using it for writing these articles or shorter posts on social media. I honestly just enjoy writing them myself. And I certainly do believe that many people can tell the difference between an article written by artificial intelligence, and one that's written by a middle-aged white guy with dubious grammar, like y'boy.

I know I can tell. I've spent more time on LinkedIn lately than ever before. It seems as though almost any response to a post – or even the post itself for that matter – is produced by AI. LinkedIn, while brilliant in many ways, has descended into a regurgitation of quasi-inspirational messages and formulaic advice for designers and other creative professionals.

My personal belief is that most readers will go cross eyed and tune out content saturation like this. We are much more likely to respond to something that's a bit...disruptive? Because real human writing on social is now becoming disruptive, simply by virtue of its rarity.

I recently enjoyed a wonderful podcast from Unexplainable that touched on the history of antibiotics. And therein, I saw its history to be analogous to AI.

When antibiotics started to become promoted, there were other medical technologies, like phages, that proved effective. However, antibiotics were much easier to control and harness. The industry promoted their overuse, even for small problems which would naturally heal on their own.

For example, if a particular infection would take 10 days to heal on its own, suppose it takes only three days to heal with antibiotics. Or, if a chicken will grow faster and with as little as 10% more mass with the use of antibiotics, by all means, make it rain. (Full disclosure I've had Amoxicillin by the pillowcase, and I don't have a DeLorean to undo that situation.)

…real human writing on social is now becoming disruptive, simply by virtue of its rarity.

I see the use of AI in the creative industry very similarly. Yes, on the surface, cutting a corner is very tempting. But the long-term effects could be regrettable. If a bacteria can learn, and then become resistant to antibiotics, could our creative "muscles" eventually become atrophied by artificial "creativity"? For that reason, might it be more reasonable (and gratifying) to use AI in a careful, purposeful way, while still maintaining our own growing, nurtured creative talents as a human being?

'Lest all of our creativity become feckless and impotent?

Plot twist: I verbally dictated this entire article using Apple Notes. That has to be some kind of AI… Maybe?