This text was made by a Human. And that's no big deal.

This text was written by a human, me. Perhaps we will increasingly find this information in texts, videos, music, and various content. The discussion I want to bring is whether this is necessarily a good thing and whether, because it is a text made entirely by me, it makes it truly authentic, unique, and irreplaceable.

Just as it happened with the New Normal and the VUCA context, it is undeniable that there is a new "buzzword." Everyone is discussing the role of generative networks, artificial intelligence, and the popstar of the moment, ChatGPT.

We always see buzzwords flooding social media, conversations, and futurist lectures in the future. However, we need to be humble that we are indeed facing an unprecedented revolution. Therefore, I bring to light the discussion about the appreciation of content created by humans. And this discussion must be pragmatic and less romantic.

We know that content produced by real people is the origin of everything. We know that intelligence, in the broadest sense, is something that machines will hardly possess. Our ability to create is unique, rich in emotions, full of personality, and nuances that are only possible through the creativity and complex vision that we have as individuals and as a society.

"Everything is slow until suddenly it is not."

The extensive use of Artificial Intelligence in art, text creation, video editing, dubbing, translation, and even programming has reached a new level. This is undeniable. However, it is not something new, as intelligent assistants have been taking up more and more space in our daily lives in recent years. Perhaps, in the past, in a more technological, complex, and programming-oriented way, but the evolution of Non-Human Intelligence increasingly connected to Human Intelligence in our routines is noticeable.

The facilitated interface together with an incredible volume of information, not to mention the free access created by OpenAI or MidJourney, for example, has democratized and created a new paradigm for the use of these technologies in daily life, including by the general public, not necessarily technical.

As a result, ChatGPT, OpenAI's popular chatbot, reached 100 million monthly active users in January 2023, just two months after launch, becoming the fastest-growing consumer app in history.

"Nothing is created, everything is copied."

The first controversy that gained strength regarding the use of Generative AI was about the intellectual property of the information and data, from different sources, that nourish these artificial intelligences. Who owns (or what is the intellectual property right) of an AI trained based on data, information, texts, and images that I have available on the internet?

For example, according to some artists, AI creates its digital art on the backs of creators who are not recognized, credited, or paid. Again, who owns art based on the art of others (with or without consent)? Of course, we can argue whether consent is conscious, unconscious, legal, or illegal based on acceptance of such terms of use when logging in or accessing social networks, applications, and software. Knowing or not, we are enriching the knowledge base and training these Artificial Intelligences all the time. Or did you think recognizing an image in a Captcha was just a fetish of the Big Techs?

But my point is another. Human knowledge itself is based on existing knowledge. Nothing is effectively entirely authentic. Even without realizing it, any creation is based on information provided by us in the past. For example, a person only learns to read and write if we teach them. If they do not access this existing knowledge, they are effectively limited in their potential for innovation and creation. That is, there is no new knowledge that does not rely on existing knowledge, consciously or not.

"If you can't beat them, join them."

While some are against it, others seize the opportunity. Not to mention the thousands of people who are unlocking their creative potential and even making money with Generative AI platforms, many people are teaming up with Artificial Intelligence.

For example, voice actor James Earl Jones is retiring from the role of Darth Vader, but the voice will not change. According to Vanity Fair, the sequences of the saga featuring the villain will rely on Artificial Intelligence to recreate James Earl's voice.

For example, voice actor James Earl Jones is retiring from the role of Darth Vader, but his voice will not change. According to Vanity Fair, any scenes featuring the villain in the franchise will use artificial intelligence to recreate James Earl's voice. This is not only incredible because we will forever have that iconic voice, but also because of the discussion it opens up about image usage rights, even after the actor's death.

The point here is that Earl Jones himself, at 91 years old, authorized the recreation of his voice by the Ukrainian startup Respeecher. During Vader's appearance in the movie Obi-Wan Kenobi, which still featured the actor's voice, artificial intelligence was employed to rejuvenate his dubbing.

In the next Star Wars movies and series, the company Respeecher will use Jones' recording archive maintained by Lucasfilm to recreate his voice from scratch. The work on Obi-Wan Kenobi was completed by company employees even during the war between Ukraine and Russia.

I raise the question: Does the problem lie in defending the purity of fully human content, or just not being paid when AI uses our information, knowledge, identity or style? Will we not gain eternity and much more scale with the use of these technologies? The answer is yes and yes.

"Leave something for the robot that you wouldn't like to do yourself"

I will call all AIs robots for pure simplification. Robotic beings were part of our imagination before becoming a reality. It's amazing that if we ever imagined something, one day it will be possible. But I want to discuss the etymology of the term robot here.

Such automatons emerged in fantastic narratives of 19th century literature as manifestations of a mysterious and supernatural power, most often bringing destruction. The Industrial Revolution and advances in science fed the imagination of authors of the time, often resulting in utopian or dystopian plots.

The word "robot" first appeared in R.U.R.: Rossum's Universal Robots, a play by Czech writer Karel ?apek. According to the playwright, the term was coined by his brother, not himself, and derives from the Czech "robota", which means forced labor, a synonym for slave labor.

In essence, robots were supposed to do activities that humans would not like to do. However, in the limit, we may not want to do anything. What is the limit of work that is effectively irreplaceable? This range is becoming smaller and smaller.

What I mean is this: If the art created, the proposed text, or the edited video are good, does it really make such a difference to you whether it was made by a machine or a human? In an Aristotelian perspective, based on the theory of the four causes, what has effective value? Is it the physical work that transforms the material cause into the formal cause? Or does value lie only in the final cause?

According to Aristotle, when we think of something, the answer must contain four causes:

1. The efficient cause - what initiates movement, the transformation agent;
2. The formal cause - the idea that governs an event;
3. The material cause - the worked/transformed substance;
4. The final cause - the goal to be achieved;

A classic example is that of the sculptor (efficient cause), who works on a block of marble (material cause), with the aim of making a beautiful piece of art (final cause), having in his mind the ideal image of a statue (formal cause).

If we achieve the same final cause (statue) to materialize the idea of an author (formal cause), does it really make such a difference who did it and how it was done?

It is possible to perceive the shortsightedness of my argument, otherwise, today there would be no appreciation of an artisanal product, an organic food or even a Swiss watch. But we cannot deny that the production scale of these items compared to the whole is significantly reduced.

I believe that the essential value of humans lies in their ability to understand problems, devise and propose solutions and not in the execution that transforms the idea into reality. In the limit, every execution can be replaced. What we cannot replace is the vision and purpose that comes from the human.

"Robot Ping-Pong"

Imagine a teacher who creates an exercise for an exam from ChatGPT. He is using a tool to support the creation of content based on an idea. Wouldn't a student be allowed to answer this test using the same tool in this case? That's right, an AI asking and an AI answering and we orchestrating this ballet. But where is the learning and knowledge creation? Knowledge leaves the axis of execution (and response) and passes to the spectrum of analysis, reflection and dialectic.

I think that our greatest capacity is still in understanding what problem we want to solve and what is the purpose of its resolution. The problem we want to solve from an idea is, perhaps, the final frontier where we will not be replaced. More than executors, we will be creators and curators of an automated world.

"Grand Finale (kind of)"

This text was made by a human, so you will find some errors and inconsistencies. Have you ever thought that something is said to be humanized precisely because it is imperfect?

That text being done by one person doesn't really mean much to you. If this text fulfilled the purpose of generating reflection, for example, wouldn't that be enough? If I told you it was done by a machine, or I didn't tell you, what impact did it have on your experience?

Of course, I am definitely wrong on many points. It is very difficult to get it right in scenarios of such complexity. But the effort in trying to understand the unfolding of this new world that opens up is valuable and motivates me. And what motivates us is what touches our essence.

I propose one last thought: perhaps the democratization of AI is a good thing, as it will force us to focus more on purpose and intention rather than on execution. As I said, the change in mentality from executor to creator and curator is complex and demands an expansion of consciousness. Finally, all this can allow us to have more time to look more at others and ourselves."

Gilberto Strafacci Neto

Human, Country Manager at Practia in Brazil (www.practiaglobal.com.br) and Senior Partner at Setec Consulting Group (www.setecnet.com.br). Master Business Essentials CORe Program from Harvard Business School, MBA in Leadership and Innovation, Mechanical Engineer from Escola Politécnica da Universidade de S?o Paulo, Master Black Belt, Agile Coach, Design Thinker, Manager 3.0, Certified Six Sigma Master Black Belt by the American Society for Quality (ASQ) and Certified Scrum Master by the Scrum Alliance and Certified LEGO? SERIOUS PLAY? Facilitator