You are correct, AI is not creative, it is a only a tool that regurgitates information that is gathered from a vast pool of information called the internet! We can use AI but, bear in mind that the user must be the editor, the verifier of accuracy and judge of acceptance because AI has no idea if what it puts out is good, bad or ugly!
Thanks, Ginny. This is what I was thinking as I read the article and comments up to here.
I have never seen a first draft, human created or otherwise, worth publishing. Creativity is a process, internal, external, and everywhere between and around. That includes interactions with chats, human or otherwise. Internal or external. The user must be the instigator, the mentor, the coach, the editor, the reader, the audience, and the final arbiter. If something creative emerges, great. The hard part is recognizing it when it happens and not running out of credits before then.
One of the ideas that has stayed with me from Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention is that creativity flourishes when curiosity, challenge, and deep engagement come together. Children embody this naturally. They experiment without fear, ask questions that adults often overlook, and immerse themselves completely in play and exploration. Protecting that sense of wonder isn't just valuable for individual growth, it is essential for innovation and for the future of our communities.
Reading this article reminded me that fostering creativity in children means giving them opportunities to explore, make mistakes, and discover ideas for themselves rather than simply teaching them the "right" answers. Those experiences build confidence, resilience, and the capacity to think in original ways.
It also raises an interesting question about artificial intelligence. AI can generate impressive outputs by recognizing patterns and synthesizing information, but I wonder whether Csikszentmihalyi's concept of flow, that deeply human state of complete absorption, intrinsic motivation, and lived experience, is something AI can truly achieve. Perhaps flow is not just a process of producing creative work, but a uniquely human way of experiencing it.
Thank you. And, when I suggested to a group of friends that if only we stop using "it", it would stop learning from us and arriving at the "yet" to which you allude.
One responded that it saves her so much time at work that she's hooked on it and won't give it up now.
Neither should I expect that we'd give up electricity or other conveniences of our contrivance, I suppose. But maybe to go back to engaging more poetry, art and music, the genuine sort might help us over this latest of morasses? That's my move.
Of course I had to try this, and the first two responses Claude gave me were trash. But then I asked it to give itself a constraint and it produced this. What do you think?
Claude’s creative sentence:
To assemble longing: remove the second chair from the kitchen table, leave the bolt holes exposed, and set a place anyway.
I see AI as the "yes and" improv partner to help communicate a unique idea better, but when we ask for it to own the origin of creativity, it simply can't. When the audiences' value comes from the human story, AI is at best the assistant.
Hmm, what I learned from this article is that I have terrible creative taste, because I like the sentence about fireflies. Especially the part about the dark being honest.
I have used AI for two projects I am working on currently. One is the drafting of a memoir and the other, tweaking a novel I wrote and did nothing with. I am a conventionally published self-help author whose book was recognized by the" Library Journal."Anyway, I started with Open AI, broke up with it, and moved on to Copilot. It seemed to understand my work is supposed to be literary, not commercial. But one day, I was not thinking when it asked if it should "polish" the chapter, I agreed to it. And then, I read it. I asked it afterward, "would you like to read three hundred pages written like this?"It admitted it wouldn't. Having said that, I'm like the battered woman with regard to Copilot. I go back, it is nice for awhile, and I think we have a great relationship again. After being complimentary, it turns on me, and I become so confused.
I love this Scott - you inspired me to try the remote associates test (RAT) with AI and it crushed it. Then I asked it to create the most creative and challenging RAT item and this was it:
Sight • Wind • Nature
It took me a couple minutes to solve it. Then I asked it for the most creative sentence ever and it was pure cringe: "Consciousness is the universe remembering that every boundary is a useful fiction, so that through countless finite lives it can discover, by freely choosing truth over comfort, that the deepest form of power is to become the kind of being capable of loving reality exactly as it is while never ceasing to transform it." This is so interesting. Compared to Dylan (not cringe): "Ain't it just like the night to play tricks when you're trying to be so quiet"
hahah yes!! This is consistent with the idea in the creativity literature that the RAT is actually a measure of convergent thinking, not divergent thinking!!!
I don't use AI for specific language or editing (I created a set of principles for myself to govern my use of it. One of them is "AI should never speak for you"), but one thing I have found it occasionally useful for is to put an entire essay into Claude and ask "Where does this drag? Where does it get boring?" Sometimes I take its answer into account, other times I ignore it, but it can help offer me a new lens to reconsider something I've written and if there's a better way to say it.
btw, here are my principles if you're interested... had some musicians very angry at me for even considering using it all, but I've found these principles to be helpful. Curious if you'd add or take away any of them!
Incredibly accurate … AI ( Anterior Insula) has a lot to answer for as well! The subconscious or conscious filters we all have determine what we ‘think’ or ‘feel’. As Rimbaud wrote of the ‘logical derangement of the senses’ so too we must disconnect filters nor accept curated interventions. I love your three Neuro networks too. ( Imagination/ Executive Control/ Salience) 👍🏻
Oh my gosh, spot on! For decades I have so appreciated your amazing thoughts and words, Scott Barry! Thank you for bringing back creativity to where it authentically belongs… in the driver’s seat of our hearts. (So appreciate your work 🙏 - CoachPoppy)
You are correct, AI is not creative, it is a only a tool that regurgitates information that is gathered from a vast pool of information called the internet! We can use AI but, bear in mind that the user must be the editor, the verifier of accuracy and judge of acceptance because AI has no idea if what it puts out is good, bad or ugly!
Thanks, Ginny. This is what I was thinking as I read the article and comments up to here.
I have never seen a first draft, human created or otherwise, worth publishing. Creativity is a process, internal, external, and everywhere between and around. That includes interactions with chats, human or otherwise. Internal or external. The user must be the instigator, the mentor, the coach, the editor, the reader, the audience, and the final arbiter. If something creative emerges, great. The hard part is recognizing it when it happens and not running out of credits before then.
One of the ideas that has stayed with me from Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention is that creativity flourishes when curiosity, challenge, and deep engagement come together. Children embody this naturally. They experiment without fear, ask questions that adults often overlook, and immerse themselves completely in play and exploration. Protecting that sense of wonder isn't just valuable for individual growth, it is essential for innovation and for the future of our communities.
Reading this article reminded me that fostering creativity in children means giving them opportunities to explore, make mistakes, and discover ideas for themselves rather than simply teaching them the "right" answers. Those experiences build confidence, resilience, and the capacity to think in original ways.
It also raises an interesting question about artificial intelligence. AI can generate impressive outputs by recognizing patterns and synthesizing information, but I wonder whether Csikszentmihalyi's concept of flow, that deeply human state of complete absorption, intrinsic motivation, and lived experience, is something AI can truly achieve. Perhaps flow is not just a process of producing creative work, but a uniquely human way of experiencing it.
Great reflections!
Thank you Scott for your insights as always! 🙏
Thank you. And, when I suggested to a group of friends that if only we stop using "it", it would stop learning from us and arriving at the "yet" to which you allude.
One responded that it saves her so much time at work that she's hooked on it and won't give it up now.
Neither should I expect that we'd give up electricity or other conveniences of our contrivance, I suppose. But maybe to go back to engaging more poetry, art and music, the genuine sort might help us over this latest of morasses? That's my move.
Of course I had to try this, and the first two responses Claude gave me were trash. But then I asked it to give itself a constraint and it produced this. What do you think?
Claude’s creative sentence:
To assemble longing: remove the second chair from the kitchen table, leave the bolt holes exposed, and set a place anyway.
I see AI as the "yes and" improv partner to help communicate a unique idea better, but when we ask for it to own the origin of creativity, it simply can't. When the audiences' value comes from the human story, AI is at best the assistant.
Fucking amen, brother
Hmm, what I learned from this article is that I have terrible creative taste, because I like the sentence about fireflies. Especially the part about the dark being honest.
haha well that’s funny. Everyone has theories tastes!
I have used AI for two projects I am working on currently. One is the drafting of a memoir and the other, tweaking a novel I wrote and did nothing with. I am a conventionally published self-help author whose book was recognized by the" Library Journal."Anyway, I started with Open AI, broke up with it, and moved on to Copilot. It seemed to understand my work is supposed to be literary, not commercial. But one day, I was not thinking when it asked if it should "polish" the chapter, I agreed to it. And then, I read it. I asked it afterward, "would you like to read three hundred pages written like this?"It admitted it wouldn't. Having said that, I'm like the battered woman with regard to Copilot. I go back, it is nice for awhile, and I think we have a great relationship again. After being complimentary, it turns on me, and I become so confused.
haha sounds like a real love-hate relationship. Thanks for the honesty!
Great article and great to see E Paul Torrance in here. Thank god humans are wildly imaginative to counter AI being wildly predictable!
It is not capable of creativity because it is not changed by encounter. The model is unchanged, and the only interaction is in the scope of a session.
Creativity is not the process of creation nor the output of ideas, it is the prior encounter that shapes the creator.
I love this Scott - you inspired me to try the remote associates test (RAT) with AI and it crushed it. Then I asked it to create the most creative and challenging RAT item and this was it:
Sight • Wind • Nature
It took me a couple minutes to solve it. Then I asked it for the most creative sentence ever and it was pure cringe: "Consciousness is the universe remembering that every boundary is a useful fiction, so that through countless finite lives it can discover, by freely choosing truth over comfort, that the deepest form of power is to become the kind of being capable of loving reality exactly as it is while never ceasing to transform it." This is so interesting. Compared to Dylan (not cringe): "Ain't it just like the night to play tricks when you're trying to be so quiet"
hahah yes!! This is consistent with the idea in the creativity literature that the RAT is actually a measure of convergent thinking, not divergent thinking!!!
That's interesting!
I don't use AI for specific language or editing (I created a set of principles for myself to govern my use of it. One of them is "AI should never speak for you"), but one thing I have found it occasionally useful for is to put an entire essay into Claude and ask "Where does this drag? Where does it get boring?" Sometimes I take its answer into account, other times I ignore it, but it can help offer me a new lens to reconsider something I've written and if there's a better way to say it.
Great use of Claude.
btw, here are my principles if you're interested... had some musicians very angry at me for even considering using it all, but I've found these principles to be helpful. Curious if you'd add or take away any of them!
https://soundfly.substack.com/p/12-principles-for-using-ai-as-an
Cool thanks man!!
Love this!
Incredibly accurate … AI ( Anterior Insula) has a lot to answer for as well! The subconscious or conscious filters we all have determine what we ‘think’ or ‘feel’. As Rimbaud wrote of the ‘logical derangement of the senses’ so too we must disconnect filters nor accept curated interventions. I love your three Neuro networks too. ( Imagination/ Executive Control/ Salience) 👍🏻
Oh my gosh, spot on! For decades I have so appreciated your amazing thoughts and words, Scott Barry! Thank you for bringing back creativity to where it authentically belongs… in the driver’s seat of our hearts. (So appreciate your work 🙏 - CoachPoppy)