There’s a reality I’ve come to understand about human nature and its relationship with new technology: “Everyone wants everything to be better, but nobody wants anything to change.”
In tech, I’ve seen this pattern repeat itself with the introduction of pretty much all innovation. The initial reaction from the majority is often fear—fear that the new technology will disrupt what we’re accustomed to, make things worse, or be invasive. Of course there’s always a small contingent of early adopters (like me) who embrace these changes enthusiastically.
I remember the arrival of email marketing -- remember how it was all bad - and your inbox was filled with junk and nothing was valuable? With every technological leap, these fears arise, and today is no different with artificial intelligence, particularly generative AI like ChatGPT.
I recently read a thoughtful article by Ben Wolf about leadership in the world of the arts on Forbes. In his article, "Creativity will Never Be Efficient” Wolf argues that the very nature of generative AI is inherently conformist—it provides answers that align with the most likely, widely accepted response. This is a natural result of how AI models are trained, using vast datasets to predict the most probable answers.
Wolf points out how AI often lacks creativity because it isn’t influenced by the diverse, unexpected sources that spark originality. He writes about how Hemingway’s writing style was influenced by the writer's visits to see Cezanne’s paintings. Wolf points out that AI presents predictable responses not creative ones —and he’s right. But I think that’s okay.
The strength of AI lies precisely in its ability to generate conformist, predictable answers. This is a feature not a bug. There are countless repetitive, mundane tasks in the arts where a “good enough” answer is exactly what’s needed. Tasks like ticket confirmation emails, or answering common customer service questions where good enough is good enough -- and these tasks don’t demand creativity. AI trades creativity for efficiency.
This is where I see potential right now for AI in the arts—not as a replacement for creativity, but as a tool that does just one thing well - it frees up time. If AI can take care of these boring repetitive tasks that make their jobs insufferable -- isn’t that a good thing?
Look -- the debate about whether new technologies like AI are good or bad is going to persist and I’m sure I’ll talk about this again. But in this initial use-case the arts shouldn’t fear artificial intelligence. but rather embrace it for the benefits it can deliver right now.
Comments