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. 
3 Likes
A mammal is a counterfeit dinosaur. Chances are it wouldn’t be very good at being a dinosaur, whatever dinosaurs are good at being. Likewise, the ill-defined and often self-contradictory collection of algorithmic techniques we refer to as AI, aren’t great at being humans, whatever humans are great at being. AI can put on fine performances of playing chess, diagnosing diseases from images, composing essays, and so on, but they are performances. It is as if we mammals had been forced at some point to pretend to be dinosaurs.
It’s not unreasonable to claim that computational thinking represents a different and new kind of cognition. It’s different and it’s new, even though it may not be in any sense equivalent to human cognition. But in the not-too-distant future, such cognition will be merged with artificial bodies, and then we will have a new class of entities in the world. These entities will move about, engage with the world, perhaps even evolve over time.
How we see them will tell us more about ourselves than about them. For most of human history, we have been unable to engage with each other and with non-human objects except in terms of dominance, utility, authenticity and efficiency. We decide that entire classes of things have no life or consciousness or humanity or value and then proceed to treat these classes accordingly. Perhaps this is why so much of human history is so tragic. Perhaps this is why this encounter too –so new, so threatening, so forewarned in our myths– will also be tragic.
But it needn’t be so. In the manga series Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou, the story is told, as all stories are told, from the perspective of a human narrator (the implied author, in this case Hitoshi Ashinano) counterfeiting another mind, in this case, that of an android, Alpha. Alpha runs a cafe. The world has endured some kind of ecological collapse, and with it human ambitions, but mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. Humans aren’t roaming about in gangs or cannibalising or setting up totalitarian camps-- those stock situations of American dystopias. In Hitoshi’s dystopia, there is grace and kindness and acceptance. The wars are done, existence has won, and human-kind is spent. Is Alpha creative? Does she have a true consciousness? Is she just a counterfeit human? I don’t think it matters at all. Alpha serves the few visitors–some new, most of them familiars– coffee and cafe conversation, and in the course of her daily routines, “she” –excuse me, she– embodies that inner peace promised to those who walk the Buddha’s path. Such a future too is possible, is it not?
I do not know if the story of our relationship with these new beings–dare I say, life?– will reflect well or poorly on us. It would depend, wouldn’t it, on how we see endings? To ready our species for its eventual extinction isn’t to deny the value of our kind. It is to recognise the Buddha in the robot– a word we could choose to understood in its most profound sense– and to find equanimity in that recognition.
1 Like
Your contemplation shows much care and reflection.
My issue with projecting possible, alternative realities like this one is that it doesn’t account for what’s actually happening today. I increasingly communicate with people in the workplace where clearly I am not communicating with them but with ChatGPT-generated content rendered in text – not just emails but other written content. Where or who or what they are vis-a-vis the stuff I’m reading becomes confusing and frustrating.
When I converse with them over videoconferencing, they don’t match their written content. If I get the opportunity to converse in person where their whole body is present, the mis-match is even further pronounced.
For me, this creates suffering.
Regarding the six colored hats theory in @yeshe.tenley’s shared article, I see this conclusion:
As a result, the gap on cognition between high-creativity and low-creativity pre-service teachers is further increased, suggesting that GenAI may amplify the influence of creativity on cognitive presence. The limited improvement among low-creativity learners underscores the need for tailored interventions that align GenAI’s capabilities with their learning needs. Such approaches can promote independent thinking, reduce over-reliance on GenAI, and ensure equitable benefits for learners of varying creativity levels.
With all due respect to the paper’s authors, in practice a low-creativity learner does not learn how to develop creativity as a thinking faculty by relying on something like ChatGPT. I would much rather work with a low-creativity learner and tease out ideas with them. That’s how human society has functioned since forever. We help one another and lift each other up.
Besides a low-creativity learner may bring much more emotional warmth to a discussion.
4 Likes
Imagine an analogous paper showing that graphing calculators enhance the mathematical abilities of students with high levels of mathematical creativity, while making things worse for those with lower levels. Would we ban or curtail the use of graphing calculators? If so, for whom? All students? Only those with lower levels of mathematical creativity, as determined by tests?
It’s a complex problem. I don’t think there are any easy answers, unfortunately.
PS: The graphing calculators analogy was chosen because these kind of debates about whether/if they should be used, when, by whom, have played out over the course of the last few decades. To what extent do the tools we use help us? To what extent do we become dependent upon them? How much do they shape us? How do they affect our cognitive and creative abilities? What if the answers to these questions are highly complex and context dependent? What if they vary by time/place/user in such a way that it isn’t easy to form society wide customs/rules because of that complexity and context dependence?
1 Like
Yes I completely concur.
In this crude drawing, I feel the complexity lies in the interaction between the functionality of a thing and human behavior relative to the functional thing (whatever the thing is). The graphing calculator questions you raise fit within this paradigm.
Obviously the calculator fits in the functionality box. Behavior includes all the use case scenarios. Creativity is generated as behavior interacts with functionality. In the calculus scenario, the creativity is pretty binary. Banning the use of a calculator to create binary outcomes seems pretty straightforward. Why would we ban that for calculus students. This is context-dependent.
The challenge (that word works for me) is that the main AI (commercial) purveyors purposefully create an illusion for people that AI is much, much more than what fits in the functionality box. When, in fact, that’s all it is. Most of the people using it are oblivious to how they behave with it.
If they’re not oblivious, rationales to use it only for “functionality when it’s more efficient” grow fast and quick. Like what’s happening now. Lines become blurred. People get confused and tired of the discussion and would just rather give in or give up. It takes a ton of effort to keep monitoring for context.
IMHO the fact that we have no control of how AI is packaged and offered for consumption is reason enough to largely limit its use in several different contexts.
1 Like
I would think that a person who uses a graphing calculator has a skillset of not just basic mathematical skill, but an advanced ability to comprehend what the calculator is doing and uses it as a tool to help work out equations.
As someone else mentioned somewhere, medical professionals who have personally poured over thousands of medical imaging has developed a valuable skill to notice and catch things. If they don’t do that task any longer, don’t develop that skill and instead rely on AI, they may make assumptions based on erroneous conclusions by AI and won’t be able to check AI’s work. (AI is not infallible in this task) In time, the skill is lost to humanity and AI compiles tainted data, as it needs humans to check the work of AI and AI needs good data to draw from.
This is at the heart of why we don’t wan’t LLMs translating Buddhist texts. If AI is going out into the world and draws from everything ever translated, the data source is tainted with wrong information. I read a statement from a Buddhist monastic who was happy with a 70% correct AI translation. Personally, I’m not interested in basing my entire spiritual life on texts that are 30% inaccurate.
I see your point, Beth. I think this is one area where AI is ultimately harmful because a person is projecting a level of competence that they don’t have. I don’t see how that helps them.
On the other hand, my wife uses ChatGPT for work when she gets stuck in expressing what she needs to convey. However, she has great integrity and honesty and uses ChatGPT only to stimulate possibilities, not to exaggerate or even use the generated text. She is very careful to not fool her superiors into thinking she is more capable or skilled than she really is. In this way it’s a tool.
I’ve been playing guitar since 1973. I don’t play much any more since I gave up a band to play with and an audience to impress. I keep an acoustic guitar handy and occasionally pick it up to make music. Theres no real point in it except sometimes it’s a beautiful sound that reflects what I’m feeling. Like this morning when I stood outside listening to the beautiful song of a bird in a tree, it’s just something that matches the joy I feel.
A friend sent me a song and asked me what I thought of it. it was OK. Turns out it was AI generated. He just typed in a description of what he wanted and it pops out, he made a few tweaks and voila! No thanks. That misses the point of creativity and leaves me cold. I think of the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of musicians who pulled music out of their hearts and minds. To me, there is an enormous difference. (That said, I seldom listen to music any more since it just fills my mind with noise and evokes thoughts of the past)
3 Likes
That touches me 
What is creative? Some people say so much more with just a few simple words. Words that touch the heart.
It also reminds me of the story of Ajahn Brahm. I’m not entirely sure if I’m recounting it correctly, but this story also touches my heart. It’s about a little girl who I believe had a disability, but was still part of the community. One day, she placed something on the altar by herself, and Ajahn Brahm observed this. She didn’t know he was there. No one else was present. What she placed on the altar was not particularly “pretty,” you could say. But it was such a wonderful gesture, made with so much heart. And Ajahn Brahm would stop anyone who tried to take it from the altar.
2 Likes
I agree that ChatGPT –which has come to stand in for AI’s goals, methods, flaws and achievements– is all too easily misused. I am the editor of a literary magazine. It is increasingly common to come across AI-generated submissions. And it isn’t always easy to spot the AI-generated ones either, especially with poetry. People are losing jobs, there is an erosion of trust, and algorithmic generativity is confounded with human creativity. All these things are true.
But I believe AI represents something truly new. It isn’t anything like the pulley or the lever or the telescope or the steam engine. It isn’t like any other invention. As your example illustrates, it can now fool us (at least, sometimes) into thinking we are dealing with fellow humans. This makes it profoundly disturbing. I think we should also ask what sort of AI entities we would like to have. Soon, one day, they will move; they will act; and they will exhibit behaviour. Will we always see these creations as nothing more than a class of servants, a new form of “bare life”, utterly disposable and requiring no humane protections? For example, what do we do with someone who is violent towards their robot pet? Will we even allow ourselves to think, let alone say: this artificial creature is capable of suffering. The odds are against it; many humans can’t even bring themselves to believe lobsters suffer when dropped in boiling water. In any event, these questions are too important to be left to lawyers and technocrats. They are ontological questions. Epistemological questions. Moral questions. And surely, questions about liberation as well.
1 Like
Agree, and there is another step in very many, I suspect most, creative’s processes - whether they realize it or not. That’s when they gather reference material.
I have heard several professional artists in various domains stress the importance of using reference material. One of my favorite contemporary sculptors (Michael Pavlovich) has modelled literally thousands of characters, and still emphasizes the value of reference material. Back in the day when @Pasanna was a graphic artist, did she never take inspiration from other sources? Never ‘borrowed’ a color palette? Never used a font that was created by another person? @Adutiya with his guitar is not creating chord progressions or tuning in a sonic vacuum, he’s calling on many examples from various inputs (likely subconsciously). The bird he hears singing does not just invent their song up from scratch, it emulates what it has heard many times. Probably, I’m not a bird. If someone appears to not be using references, it’s likely because they are drawing on an internal library of past experiences. The sketch that Bhikkhu Sujato did of a monk wasn’t just created from tabula rasa, he called on the many memories he has of seeing example monks. Thought experiment: grow a human from scratch in a featureless white dome with no visuals, literature, sound or human contact for 35 years then ask them to draw a monk.
My point is simply that “creatives” do not just bring stuff into existence ex nihilo like a creator god. They draw (no pun intended) on references. To imagine otherwise is fantasy.
As a side comment, what AI will do is to raise expectations for people to produce more, faster, cheaper. Work hard Zutrov, and each day I will give you a shiney nickel
1 Like
Colour palette: nope, can’t say I ever did. i spent 4 years at university learning about composition, colour theory, layout, negative space along with symbolism and meaning. I used my experience and skill for this kind of thing.
I don’t think your example about fonts is valid. Of course graphic designers are using existing fonts.
The creative process is about communicating meaning. It’s not about putting a whole lot of references material’ into a blender and saying ‘that looks good’.
3 Likes
My post covered inputs of sights via the eye, sounds via the ear and alluded to touch via the sculptor’s fingers (although my guy is in fact digital). I had not considered thoughts via the mind though, so I thank you for this fresh angle. I also have acquired skills and experience from others who in turn were not the originators of “their” ideas. (I’ve also progressed via my own efforts seeded by other’s knowledge and examples) … I digress from the thread though.
All I’m saying is that I sometimes hear an accusation levelled at AI that it rips off other peoples work. I can’t help noticing though that humans have been doing that in art, philosophy, science and other domains since before electricity. If I copy one persons work, that’s plagiarism and not OK. If I take inspiration from 100 people, that’s perfectly fine. In this regard, AI moves even further away from plagiarism.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always been somewhat anti the easy-button which is why 100% of my creative projects are AI free.