I agree that art operates within a political and attentional economy: precisely because of that critiquing AI from outside those systems risks moral narcissism. The real question is not whether AI “undermines” creativity, but whether it simply shifts the conditions in which human creativity has always arisen dependently on others and the world
But, inevitably, some of those shifts are positive and some negative no?
For example, the consolidation of radio stations in the United States under “iHeart” had a seriously negative impact on the music scene compared to the prior economic arrangement where there was more diversity and competition among stations and DJs. Or the censorship under the Communist regime in China compared to, e.g., medieval Bruges, etc etc. Are you denying that “shifts in economic conditions” can have negative impacts on art and creativity?
I agree of course with the fact that shifts in economic and attentional conditions can have both positive and negative effects on creativity. What I was basically questioning is the move from analyzing conditions to adopting a stance that seems to stand outside them, judging from above.
From a Dhamma perspective, I understand that creativity is always conditioned (paṭicca-samuppāda). Indeed everything seems to be ultimately conditioned. (I was listening to a talk by a famous monk who said that the Buddha learned the four noble truths from the previous Buddha under whom a practiced).
The issue isn’t that conditions change, but how we relate to them. When critique positions the critic as morally exempt from the very systems being examined, does it not risk turning analysis into moral judgment, which feels at odds with the Dharma’s emphasis on non-self and shared conditionality? At least in Christianity, with which I am more familiar, this posture is precisely what is criticized in the figure of the Pharisee.
The aim, as I see it, is not to condemn tools from a place of moral superiority, but to examine how all of us are implicated in these shifting conditions.
Cheers to that!
Am I going too far when I say we are responsible for understanding a transition from organic conditions (changing) to synthetic conditions (changing) – ultimately, noting when human creativity has been usurped by the synthetic thing it has created? IMHO this is beyond the capacity of most people. It would take seeing the five khandas in play all the time, everywhere. It would be relentless awareness.
Put another way, what human (mind) faculty or capacity is required to note where we are on that spectrum? Can we be fully inside it and maintain this noting? I don’t see how because AI’s magnetism reminds me of that of the three kilesas.
From my understanding, exercising one’s ability to make assessments or “judgments” is part-and-parcel of wise living. (Also, I don’t see this discernment denigrated in the early Christian texts…we can discuss that over PMs, perhaps.)
1 Like
Please keep this thread about the Essay on AI and creativity. Please try not to go on digressions on other topics.
1 Like
7 posts were split to a new topic: Pure vs corrupt - AI, power and money
This study found that LLM usage can actually enhance creativity for those with pre-existing high-creativity levels: Exploring cognitive presence patterns in GenAI-integrated six-hat thinking technique scaffolded discussion: an epistemic network analysis – DOAJ
”The study further analyzed cognitive presence pattern differences between high-creativity and low-creativity pre-service teachers and found that GenAI contributed to enhancing the cognitive presence of pre-service teachers, with a notable benefit for those with high creativity levels.”
Here’s a video explainer.
I know this won’t be popular. 
2 Likes