I grew up as an artist, taking lessons in Mrs. Flannigan’s basement starting at age 5. My friends have always been creators, and my wife is an amazing artist. For decades, I have worked with writers, helping ensure they create and share their work, connecting with readers.
As I see AI-generated writing and images become more mainstream, I’ve been questioning:
- How is AI going to help people create?
- Where will it destroy our ability to create, diminish the value of what we create, and change our identity as writers and artists?
Today I want to do a deep dive using some specific examples of the intersection of AI and creativity.
Something I’m considering is this: AI is clearly being integrated into nearly all digital tools already. Will AI simply become a natural part of a much larger process, or will AI become the process itself? And in that situation, does the writer and artist lose their identity?
There is a rush to integrate AI into the fabric of our lives, and soon it will simply be more convenient to use it than not. It may quickly get to a point where it will feel like you are hurting your own aspirations and needs by not using it.
As I explore this today, I think a point I am making is this: don’t lose your unique creative voice to AI. That is probably easy at the moment, because you may not be an early adopter to AI tools. But as they become more useful and compelling, we may even become unaware of how AI is not only becoming a part of the creative process, it becomes the entirety of the creative process.
The results may skew our own perceptions around creativity, what is real, and who we are as writers and artists. I’ll try to keep this conversation very practical though, so let’s dig in…
How Will AI Change Our Identity?
Not long ago, my friend Melinda Wenner Moyer sent me a text saying that on a whim she had “AI headshots” done. What is that? Well, you upload a series of photos of yourself, and then for around $50, an AI service will deliver back to you a whole bunch of brand new professional looking headshots. Can you tell me which of these images are actual photos of Melinda, and which were generated by AI?
Difficult to tell, isn’t it? I imagine you are looking for one tell-tale sign. But if I didn’t tell you that two of these are AI generated, would you even question it for a moment? Each look like Melinda and have convincing levels of detail. (Note: I desaturated the images and added noise to some of them to ensure they all generally had the same tone.) Of the images above, it is: AI, real, AI, real.
She and I discussed the ethical considerations of using them, and each of us immediately felt it would be potentially problematic.
In the “pro” column for using AI headshots, I could see many compelling reasons for someone to use them. Instead of scheduling a photoshoot, taking off a few hours, selecting outfits, hoping you have a good hair day, spending hundreds of dollars, and waiting weeks for results… you could have them nearly instantly with barely any effort. For Melinda, the AI headshot app gave her dozens of options, all were very convincing, and each in a different outfit/setting, here is a small sampling:
I could easily see how she could find one that she likes, and then generate more versions of that one to get the exact right expression or photo. All this, while making very little effort.
Compare this to an actual photoshoot she did about four years ago. From what I can tell from the numbers on the images, the photographer she hired clicked the shutter button more than 400 times during that session. Melinda did 3 outfit changes, and more than 60 photos were delivered to her for review. Of those, she ended up choosing 3 or 4 that she eventually used publicly. All of this cost around $400.
Since this was so time consuming to create, if Melinda liked a certain “look” from this batch, but not her expression, she may have to compromise on the final photo she uses.
Each year my family hires a photographer for holiday cards, and if I’m honest, it always feels like a hassle. We have to remember to book a session in August before they sell out. We have to keep a Saturday morning clear in October when the kids are both super busy with other activities. We have to get the “perfect” outfits, try to coax the little one to be happy but not off-the-wall, serious but not dour. And then… we wait for two weeks and hope that one of the photos captures us all — just right — in the same split second.
It’s so easy to say, “I prefer real, I won’t use AI.” But I have been surrounded by writers and artists my whole life, and it’s common to see someone try 40 or 80 or 120 photos of themselves or their art, and still feel like they haven’t gotten it right. What if you could just instantly get 50 perfect images to choose from? Then in another instant, get 50 more versions of the one photo you liked best from that initial batch.
What could be lost as a process like this — using AI for photos of ourselves — becomes more mainstream? It will be less viable for someone to be a professional photographer. Yes, of course, some still will, thriving in niche markets in the same way that vinyl records and film cameras are still created. But they are each a small fraction of the marketshare they once had.
Likewise, our own skills may diminish. When we take photos, we learn about framing, lighting, and so many nuances of the skill of photography. When we are simply given dozens of perfect photos to choose from, we lose out on that learning.
I can envision this in the not too distant future: someone creates AI images of themselves that they love, and then a year later, feed those AI images back into the AI for updated versions. Then a year later, do it again. To the point where it is an AI-generated copy of a copy of a copy of how you looked 12 years ago.
Am I imagining a dystopian future? That’s not my goal. Honestly, I’m trying to think of this on very practical terms. With AI, what will be real when it comes to our own identity? When it will be too tempting to use AI. I was on LinkedIn the other day, and it made a compelling offer: that if I allow its AI to rewrite my status update, it may receive 35% more distribution and 35% more engagement. Wouldn’t I be foolish not to see how it can improve my post to give me so much more reach?
I’m envisioning our reliance on AI to be similar in a very practical, humdrum, everyday kind of way.
How Will AI Change Our Voice?
If you are unfamiliar with Adam, he is an author who tends to share short posts on X that explains a complicated topic in a brief — often counterintuitive — way. Here is a recent one from Adam where he explains the difference between shyness and introversion, and how to avoid each:
I asked ChatGPT to create something similar, and purposefully did NOT ask it to write in “Adam Grant style” so that it (hopefully) wouldn’t copy any of his material, or otherwise benefit from his writing without compensation to him.
The first attempt:
Maybe you think that is good, maybe you think it is horrible. But what becomes interesting is the next prompt:
This took milliseconds to create. Are some of these kinda weird? Yep. Could I easily see some of these passing for compelling social media updates, especially if paired with an authentic selfie? I think so. And this was with the most minimal effort on my part. If I spent even 15 minutes honing this process, the results would be much better.
Of course, this underscores the power of an author’s platform, that people follow Adam because they trust him. That trust took years to develop.
Yet the question that started this piece remains for me: will AI not be part of the creative process, but become the creative process? I can see someone using AI as part of their process to help explore an idea and craft social media posts. But what happens when one person decides to create 100 “Adam Grant style” social media profiles, and pumps out thousands of these a day? Or when one’s work becomes “infected” with all of this AI-created material that they have no real research on or authority about? That little by little, they have no unique voice other than the voice of the AI?
I recently saw a Facebook post from Joe Illidge that really got me thinking:
I feel like he was underscoring that if an artist doesn’t document every step of their creative process, they may be falsely accused of using AI, with the insinuation that the use of AI is theft or unethical. And that this artist’s career may be badly damaged very quickly without convincing proof otherwise. Some in the comments of that post described how this was already happening to some creators.
It’s a fascinating situation to consider — one where writers and artists must create from a defensive posture. How is a creators voice changed in this process?
Will We Even Be Able to See AI Anymore?
But here’s the thing: filmmaker James Cameron just rereleased Aliens, and in making it the best representation for the film on modern TVs, he used AI to remove film grain and enhance the visuals. This has been highly controversial in the film community. I’ve watched some YouTube videos of people showing still shots from the film before and after the AI has been applied, and it’s compelling (new version is on the left):
But I wanted to watch the film as an average moviegoer, not an analyst. The result? Honestly, the film looks like it was shot this year. It looks modern in terms of level of detail, lighting, clarity, etc.
And this had me considering: will we be able to even notice AI anymore once it is woven into the fabric of all that we see?
Our Analog Future
I am drawn to creators who eschew modern technology, instead devoting themselves largely to analog tools One of those people is a musician named Sam Battle, who goes by the moniker “Look Mum No Computer.” This recent video best sums up his unique talent. While performing a live show, he asks for requests, and on the spot he creates a cover version of the Blur song titled “Song 2:”
This is astounding to me. Here he is on his custom made synthesizer, crafting songs live, singing, and engaging directly with the audience.
His stage name is meant to highlight that unlike most music recorded nowadays, he isn’t recording into a computer, and then manipulating the sound from there.
Here is someone focused on the tools you can see and touch, with hundreds of dials he can adjust on stage. He is showing up live in front of the audience, and walking that edge of asking for cover songs he has never played before.
This is where I tend to feel inspired. Art thrives when it has clear boundaries and limits. That always enhances the work because the artist is forced to do something new within those confines.
When I hear of Jack White not allowing mobile phones at his concerts, and when the Broadway show I went to didn’t allow phones out during the performance, I kind of love it. It forces us to simply be present and realize that less is indeed more. And that when our attention is focused, creativity thrives.
To answer the original question, will AI be a part of the creative process, or become the process itself? I feel we each get to decide for ourselves. And all I ask is that you make these decisions consciously and with intention.
Please let me know in the comments: how do you see AI impacting how you create, or the creative field you are in?
For my paid subscribers this week I shared a video on how to measure success beyond subscriber & follower growth. You can see a preview here.
Thank you for being here with me.
-Dan