The Creative Cost of Convenience

9

October

2025

No ratings yet.

While it’s now part of an exercise to write blog posts in which we reflect on our experience with AI tools, this topic has been on my mind for quite some time. I often find myself wondering: who am I without the assistance of these AI things? What is my added value?

Most interesting is that it hasn’t been long since the first consumer-facing AI tools entered our lives, and yet I increasingly hear from people, both within and beyond the university environment, that they can hardly remember what life was like before these tools existed. That’s wild, especially considering how quickly we’ve become reliant on them.

And I’m no exception. Although I was a late adopter of the technology, I now use AI regularly, across a wide range of tasks. In academic settings, I mostly use Copilot and ChatGPT for refining my ideas, generating feedback on my work, and correcting my writing, especially since English isn’t my first language. Outside of the university environment, I recently started to experiment with image and video generation tools, as they allow me to express my creativity in a completely new and faster way. In those moments, AI feels like a complementary creative partner, and using it that way is genuinely fun and empowering.

However, I also notice a growing trend: more and more people are outsourcing entire workflows to AI, from brainstorming all the way to final drafts. And honestly, I can’t blame them. The efficiency gains from automating repetitive tasks are undeniable. But as others have pointed out in their blogs as well, this shift comes at a cost. I really feel like we’re gradually offloading our human capabilities, our creativity, our critical thinking, to machines. If we continue down this path, those skills may slowly fade away.

And I feel like it’s already affecting most of us, at least I know it has affected me. It changes how we think. A part of our problem-solving ability simply gets outsourced, and we don’t always notice it happening. That’s why I’ve started to pull back a bit in how I use generative AI tools. I’m worried that if I rely too much on these tools for my day-to-day tasks, my own creative and critical thinking skills might fade. And if that happens, what do I really bring to the table in future workplaces? If I depend on machines for everything, how can others depend on me?

That’s why, currently, I am working to restore my balance between thinking on my own and seeking ‘advice’ from these tools. And I believe we all should. AI can really be a great support, but it shouldn’t take over the parts that make us human. It should solely complement us, for instance to actually BE creative. The real challenge is to keep thinking for ourselves, stay curious and critical, and make sure we’re still using our own minds, even if it is so tempting to outsource our whole existence to these machines.

What do you think, is AI a step toward empowerment in the human environment, or could it become our downfall?

Please rate this

The blurring thin line between artificial and human creativity

9

September

2018

No ratings yet. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has already pervaded many industries. In recent years, a few AI use cases also caught the attention of the creative industry: Microsoft’s Chinese chatbot XiaoIce became capable of generating decent image-inspired poems, Sony started dishing out pop songs using its AI Lab’s FlowComposer, and 20th Century Fox asked IBM Watson to create a trailer for the horror movie “Morgan”. Now one has to wonder: Is the creative human mind still needed?

To answer this question, we need to look behind the scenes. For AIs to become “creative”, they have to be trained on relevant datasets first to understand what to read out of future inputs. In our examples, thousands of existing image-poem pairs were used for XiaoIce to learn how to find poetic clues in images; hundreds of songs of the same genre were fed into FlowComposer to make it adapt to different music styles; and Watson was forced to “watch” tons of horror movies to understand which scenes from “Morgan” may be useful for the trailer. Except for the poems, both the songs and the trailer actually also required extensive manual arrangement before release.

The results in all three categories are definitely remarkable for their technological achievement, but not as satisfying when compared to pure human creations. The poems, despite having passed the Turing test, tend to be more descriptive and bland rather than emotional or meaningful. The songs do show some typical characteristics of the respective genres, but are not very catchy due to the lack of recognizable motives. As for the trailer, it summarized the movie in an almost chaotic way, because the AI was trained to focus on salient emotions instead of the plot.

As we can see, AIs nowadays still miss a human touch when it comes to creating original content. And it is questionable if they will ever obtain real creativity since their outputs heavily depend on the datasets they were trained on. Yet, their ability to extract patterns from vast amounts of materials may help human creators see and break artistic boundaries to set new standards – something the creative industry urgently needs, and always should strive for.

 

Sources:

https://thenextweb.com/artificial-intelligence/2018/08/10/microsofts-ai-can-convert-images-into-chinese-poetry/

Click to access 1804.08473.pdf

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-compendium-of-ai-composed-pop-songs/

https://www.ibm.com/watson/advantage-reports/future-of-artificial-intelligence/ai-creativity.html

Please rate this