The Future Irony of AI: A Grand Reset

The Theory: The irony of AI lies in this: left-brain thinkers believed they had cracked the code to right-brain creativity, only to find that the right brain will gladly use AI to excel at everything the left brain once claimed superiority over, faster and more efficiently than ever before.

AI doesn’t make engineers creative; it makes creatives engineers. That’s what you call a grand reset.

• Role Reversal: AI has enabled right-brain thinkers, traditionally associated with creativity and intuition, to excel in tasks typically dominated by left-brain thinkers. With AI’s assistance, creative minds can now engage in areas like data analysis, coding, and engineering, which were once the stronghold of logical, analytical thinkers.
• AI as an Equalizer: AI acts as a democratizing force, leveling the playing field by making traditionally complex tasks more accessible. This shift is evident in fields like design and programming, where AI tools simplify processes, allowing creatives to excel in areas that previously required specialized expertise.
• Shift in Value: This theory suggests that as AI handles routine logical tasks, creativity and human intuition will become more valued in the workforce. This shift could be seen as a "grand reset," where the skills that are most prized and the people who excel in those skills undergo significant change.

We may be witnessing the emergence of a new way of thinking, where AI blurs the lines between creativity and logic, empowering right-brain thinkers to excel in traditionally left-brain tasks.

Enter center stage one of my all time favorite artists, Hayao Miyazaki, he stated,

“I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.” He continued, “I am utterly disgusted. If you really want to make creepy stuff, go ahead and do it. I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all.”

Miyazaki’s view on AI is critical, particularly when it comes to its application in creative fields. He believes that art and creativity should be rooted in human emotion and experience, and he is wary of the dehumanizing potential of AI in these areas. His stance reflects a deep commitment to the human aspects of art, which he sees as irreplaceable by technology.

Take a slightly more considered view to the challenges in this theory:

1. Complexity of Creativity: While AI can assist in creative processes, it’s debatable whether it can truly replicate or enhance human creativity. Creativity involves a complex interplay of experiences, emotions, and intuition that AI, which operates on data and patterns, might not fully capture.
2. Continued Importance of Left-Brain Utility: The theory implies that left-brain tasks could be entirely overtaken by AI, but this may oversimplify the situation. Engineers and logical thinkers still play a crucial role in designing, improving, and guiding AI systems. The collaboration between creative and analytical thinkers may become more crucial, rather than one cognitive style dominating the other.
3. Impact on Jobs and Collaboration: The theory suggests potential displacement of left-brain thinkers, but the reality might involve new types of jobs and collaborations emerging. The integration of AI into the workforce is likely to be complex, with both creative and analytical thinkers finding new ways to work together.

Anyway enough of my ponderings on humanism and existentialism here is some practical application.

• Leverage AI for Creativity: Use AI to streamline tasks, allowing more time for creative problem-solving.
• Encourage Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration: Blend creative and analytical teams, using AI to bridge cognitive styles.
• Adapt to Shifting Roles: Acknowledge the increasing value of creativity as AI handles repetitive tasks.
• Invest in AI Education: Equip both creative and analytical employees with AI skills for broader adaptability.
• Emphasize Human Creativity: Highlight the irreplaceable value of human intuition and creativity, even with AI's efficiency.

Philosophical inspiration :

The inspiration for this theory dates back a long time for me, 30 years ago while doing a lackluster job of getting a degree, but its philosophical roots stretch even further into the past.

Immanuel Kant, long before the advent of AI, reflected on the interplay between intuition and understanding:

“Intuition and concepts, therefore, constitute the elements of all our knowledge, so that neither concepts without an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without concepts, can yield knowledge.”

Kant’s insight highlights the balance between intuition (often linked with creativity and right-brain thinking) and conceptual understanding (associated with logic and left-brain thinking). In a modern context, AI might be seen as a tool that bridges these two elements, but it’s the human mind that ultimately synthesizes them into meaningful knowledge.

I will leave you with my favorite anecdote of metaphysical thinking that may even apply to the future of AI seen by the populace, its goes; certain aspects of reality, such as "things-in-themselves" (noumena), are ultimately unknowable, and that we can only know the phenomena, how things appear to us.