Is generative AI undermining authentic creativity? – FSView & Florida Flambeau

In a world characterized by the increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), there has been growing concern about which aspects of society will remain the same and which will be forced out. While this is typically discussed in relation to intelligence, we should question how the excessive use of generative AI affects authentic creativity and whether it is detrimental to individuality. 

When generative AI tools like ChatGPT started becoming popular, I was fundamentally opposed to it. As a creative, I didn’t believe that something artificial had any place in fields dominated by imagination, expressiveness and authenticity. 

Last semester, however, it finally started to wear me down. I began using ChatGPT to assist me with brainstorming and broadening my research on the topics that I wanted to write about. It didn’t feel wrong because its responses still originated from my ideas; in fact, I thought that I was being smart by getting a head start on finding my place in an increasingly technological world. 

Reality reared its ugly head when I realized that my use of AI was damaging my creative voice. Technology is a gift for creatives, as programs like Google and Grammarly completely change the game, especially when it comes to research and drafts. However, I’ve found that being in conversation with AI has significant subliminal effects on my personal voice, internal dialogue and work ethic. These are effects that I believe extend to many creatives who choose to use AI. 

I speak for writing when I say that research is a major part of the creative process, but I believe this can extend to many other creative mediums. Having an idea for a topic is only the beginning. Research broadens our perspective on the topic, and only by reading and learning can we begin to form our personal opinions.

Using AI for brainstorming eliminates the middleman. ChatGPT takes idea prompts and offers options for incorporating those ideas into a larger piece. This can be problematic because it can promote a decline in the research that connects us to other perspectives, which isn’t a sustainable trade-off.

“AI doesn’t replace the work that we have to do to address the types of questions that concern us in regards to human social connection,” Kyle Bond, an FSU Ph.D. candidate in rhetoric and composition with a minor area of focus in philosophy, said. 

Because of this, AI-inspired writing becomes less nuanced. Writing about different perspectives that one hasn’t encountered is extremely difficult. After telling AI what you want, it merely reinforces your initial opinion rather than pushing you to talk about specific topics with as much depth and intricacy as they deserve. 

This creates personal echo chambers and causes individual opinions to lack authentic conviction, rendering AI-inspired writing inauthentic.

“We’re cultivating a culture of people who are forgetting how to create,” Megan Cunningham, a junior majoring in theater, said. “People use generative AI as a substitute for creativity and brainpower.” 

Even if AI is not being used to create works, using it seems to affect a writer’s voice. AI has a distinct voice in its responses, typically ridden with surface-level writing and inconsistent complexities as it tries to encompass multiple styles. 

Since it is human nature to emulate what we read, if we only read the same writing style—because AI does not change—we will begin to adopt that style, losing our voice. 

The more I used AI, the more I could not tap into my voice. The longer I stare at a blank page, the stronger my compulsion to use AI becomes. 

The irony is that creativity is defined by humanity. AI’s artistic generation is lacking because creativity stems from the human imagination. It cannot be forged by analyzing patterns or machine learning.

“As a creative writer, I don’t think that [AI] is capable of truly understanding my field,” Arlo Jones, a freshman creative writing major, said.

AI’s quick, transactional nature poses yet another limitation to creativity as it attempts to speed the creative process. 

Each step of the creative process – the trials, the errors, how things change – makes up a massive part of what gives the result value. More importantly, these imperfections allow us to learn and grow and are crucial for our development.  

“There’s creativity by itself as an idea, and there is creativity for a certain purpose,” Bond said. “If, hypothetically, we can get AI to address all of our individual needs and desires, the question of what that does for us collectively would, in theory, still remain.”

Speedrunning the process by using AI for research and ideas takes away a significant amount of the creation. Though there is fulfillment and pride in viewing a final product, we do not create to reach the end. 

“We don’t just study math because it is utilitarian,” Bond said. “And I think that literacy is no different.”

The purpose of creating is not output, as AI suggests, but exploration and development.

I acknowledge that AI had a more extreme impact on me, and I believe that for those who have a strong and developed creative voice, there may be a way for the two to coexist. However, I do worry that the decreasing prevalence of authentic creations, exacerbated by AI usage, will progressively dull the creative sphere.