Will ChatGPT Kill Creativity?

Sir Ken Robinson's groundbreaking 2006 Ted Talk, "Do Schools Kill Creativity?" is widely recognised as the most viewed TED talk of all time. He argued that creativity is one of the most vital human qualities, and traditional schools stifle it. However, the question now is, will AI replace human creativity? While some commentators suggest that AI will enhance creativity due to the human-AI alliance, I have my doubts.

In this article, I will focus on the creativity of writing, particularly in fiction and thought-provoking content, as opposed to non-fiction, i.e. NOT ‘Six ways to make a million dollars in a recession’, and NOT ‘Enrol in my AI course and write a best-selling novel in under a week’.?

When discussing creativity, we should differentiate between standard levels of creativity and the deeper creativity that makes humanity unique.

In his article?addressed to corporates, Daniel Burrus explains three levels of creativity: Discovery, Invention and Creation.

When I build a website, a landing page, or an online course, I am being creative. I drew on my creative side when I built the decks around our house.

The talented geeks building AI are being creative.

And the above examples of creativity are a mix of Discovery, Invention and Creation, arguably leaning more heavily toward the Creation end of the spectrum.

However, there is another form of creativity that I want to address - the creativity of artists. Sure, artists Discover, Invent and Create. However, the artists who create poetry, literature and visual masterpieces draw from a deeper well within (or outside) them.

The brilliantly articulate Nick Cave has discussed AI's influence on art after a fan sent him an AI-generated song written 'in the style of Nick Cave' to see what Nick thought of it. Mr Cave was?far from enthusiastic. I'm confident Nick, a rare artist who goes to his office five days a week to work on his books, poetry and music, would say his creative process is mostly a blend of Invention and Creation but with a considerable amount of 'drawing from the well'.

The legend who is Keith Richards, when asked how he wrote all those songs, laughs his gravelly laugh and says, “I don’t know man, I don’t take any credit for them. They come from somewhere up there … they come through, and I just write ‘em down”. Keith would, I suspect, claim that his creative talent is drawn heavily from the well.

BTW, I dare anyone to ask Keith if he would have preferred, had ChatGPT been around in his day, to not be a channel, but rather, to have copied down whatever ChatGPT gave him. I think he’d laugh and consider the question unworthy of an answer.

How should we refer to this channelled creativity from the well? I thought I'd ask ChatGPT. Here's a paraphrase of the output:

The creativity used by poets and artists is often described as intuitive or inspirational, as it draws from their personal experiences, emotions, and perceptions. This type of creativity can incorporate elements of discovery, invention, and creation. Poets and artists often draw on existing ideas and concepts, and then transform them into something new and unique through their creative process. While this type of creativity may seem more channelled or intuitive, it still requires discipline and skill to bring ideas to fruition.?

So, it seems we are referring to Inspirational Creativity!

BTW, it is clear that ChatGPT is talking about Inspirational Creativity intellectually rather than from experience. And for obvious reasons.?

We need to listen to people who regularly draw on Inspirational Creativity. We need to hear what they have to say about Inspirational Creativity and the human-AI alliance. Currently, the voices on human-AI-creativity are creatives of the discover-invent-create type rather than the 'Inspirationals'. They are a bit like cattle farmers discussing sustainable agriculture.

My 15-year-old, who is more of a writer than most, is well into writing a fiction novel. I asked Elsie about their creative process:?

‘The story is mapped out as best as possible. New ideas come at random, unexpected times. I write them down. And then, sometimes - DURING THE ACT OF WRITING - something new will come through - a way to tie together two story arcs, a related subplot for the protagonist.’

Importantly, the ideas are Elsie’s. They come from Elsie’s well. They don’t come from the baker, the candlestick maker, or AI.

I asked “How much of your love of the writing process is being the radar dish to collect your ideas. How much joy comes via the act of writing?”

A huge amount!

Then I asked, “how would you like to have an alliance with AI so you no longer need to be the radar dish, so you no longer need to write to discover new ways of weaving your story together?”

Elsie looked at me, somewhat perplexed. “What would be the point of that?”

Sadly, does this mean the path to making half a living from being an artist is closing rapidly for new budding artists? Because now some clueless twat can use AI to write a bestseller?

Poignantly, will an AI-saturated populace know the difference??

While I’m on a roll ... when I’ve read an impossibly excellent book, such as Hanna Kent’s Burial Rites, or Sue Monk Kid’s The Book of Longings, or Sharon Kay Penman’s Sunne in Splendour, what do I do next? I go to YouTube and search for interviews with the author. Because when I read an exceptional book, one that makes me stop, shake my head and ask, ‘How the heck did she think to use THOSE words to express THAT scene?’, it’s a personal experience. I’m reading the masterpiece and wondering about the author. I’m absorbing the result of a creative channel flowing through a fellow human. So I seek to understand a little about this human conduit.

Compare this to reading a ’best seller’ if I knew the author of the ‘best seller’ was AI. There would be no comparison because it’s not just about the writing. The experience of reading the book is more than digesting the collection of words. It’s also about being interested in the human that poured, for years, her heart and soul into this jewel.?

I tried to read a best seller recently. A human wrote it. It may as well have been written by AI (and on a particularly bad day.) Bland. Formulaic. Poorly developed characters. A complete absence of a sense of wonder in the writing. It made me realise that best-selling books resemble a great deal of in-fashion pop music. Bland. Formulaic. A complete lack of a sense of wonder.

What bothers me is living in a world where creatively talentless humans use AI to write technically excellent books but books that lack and sense of heart and soul AND where most people can’t tell the difference.?

I don't want to live in a world where creatively talentless humans a) make more money than the artists (because they can crank out 100 times as much product) and b) in doing so, the market is flooded with heartless, soulless, (but technically) excellent books.

And for what? So that creatively talentless humans make money, and artists find day jobs?

In summary, ChatGPT and similar AI have clear benefits as idea generators and editing tools, particularly in non-fiction writing. However, I am concerned about AI's impact on writers who specialize in literary and creative pursuits. While the use of AI to generate content may be fine in itself, it could lead to a situation where those who lack creative talent use technology to saturate the market with uninspired content, making it more difficult for genuinely talented writers to make a living.

Furthermore, the essence of what makes us human - our ability to create and be inspired - may diminish as AI becomes more prevalent in creative fields. I fear we are careering into a future in which the mantra 'follow your passion' is less relevant and aspiring artists are discouraged from pursuing their passions.

[Oh, come on, Richard, don’t be such a conservative. This is simply an inevitable consequence of technological AI progress.?Get used to it.]

Fun Fact: Apart from the para in italics, I ran an early draft of this article through ChatGPT but discarded all but the first paragraph. I didn't bother running the latest draft through except for the summary - mine was too wordy. I preferred ChatGPT's summary but it required significant improvements. It's more formal than the rest of the article but it'll do!

Oh ... and I did have two wonderful humans giving me input!

Links to related LinkedIn Events and articles:

• Leadership, Kindness and Socratic Education (A discussion with Barry Cooper, Principal, The Global College, Madrid.)
• The AI Dilemma (The presentation from Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin who produced The Social Dilemma)
• Will ChatGPT kill creativity? (Article)
• Practical Assessment Ideas That Embrace ChatGPT & Other AI?(Nick Jackson)
• Transparency & Trust: Making Assessment & Learning ChatGPT-proof?(Bridget Pearce)
• Maintaining Assessment Integrity In The Age Of ChatGPT?(Paul Browning, Matt Bentley, Angela Phillips)

Links and PD references:?

• Learn Implement Share Course Academy
• Department-wide Approach
• Dept-wide Interventions to Maximise Active Learning in Mathematics Students?(LinkedIn Event: Anja Mori, Mathematics Director, Wellington College International, Shanghai)

Your turn ...

Thoughts anyone? What were your takeaways?