How to Keep AI From Destroying Creativity

Hey, hey, hey, everybody. This is Faithful on the Clock, the podcast where every pat of butter goes on the toast to get your faith and work aligned. I am your host, Wanda Thibodeaux, and today’s show is going to address AI. Specifically, how can we integrate AI without sacrificing the human creativity that is a reflection of the nature of God? I won’t waste any time here, so let’s jump in.

So, if you are new to the show or just haven’t listened to all the episodes, I’ve addressed AI once before in Episode 21, which I’d encourage you to go back and get a refresher on. And in that show, I tried to focus on AI maybe a little more generally, just asking people to consider whether they were letting wisdom drive their AI strategies. But in this episode today I really wanna kind of dig into the juxtaposition of AI and the creative process. Because obviously, you know, me, being a writer, that influences me quite directly, you know, in terms of tools like ChatGPT essentially being used to replace content creators. But I definitely think we all need to address AI in the context of creativity being linked to virtually all business innovation. Right? It is not at all a profession or industry concern. It’s really a way of thinking about how we get the end result we’re after, and that issue applies across the board.

So, the main idea here is that, you know, if God is the Creator and we’re in His image, then we all should have some degree of drive to create like He does. Now, we all have different talents and skills and spiritual gifts. So, there are plenty of different ways we can be creative, right? We’re not locked into one pathway on that. And no matter what pathway we take with our creativity, there is a unique process to it that allows us to learn and connect and develop as human beings. And there’s a little bit of a struggle within all of that that is helpful to us. Like, if you think about a little chick that’s still in the egg ready to hatch, scientists know now that the chick has to fight out of that shell to be healthy. There’s something about that struggle that’s strengthening. And I see the struggles of the creative process as being the same way. We need them to grow. So maybe to put it a little more simply, you cannot remove the process of creativity and expect a strong human being.

That said, what is the selling point of AI? Almost always, it’s the removal of the creative process in the name of efficiency and economy. So then if you do that, you might get an OK result, you might get something people will still buy, but people aren’t applying their skills, talents, and gifts anymore. And I think what’s happening, you know, the assertion is that AI will free people to do so-called “better” jobs. But I think what’s being forgotten is that better is subjective. So for example, as a writer, the call is for me to let AI generate the content and then focus more on editing or development. It’s more about refining the base product. But I can tell you, editing and writing are two completely different elements. You can be a great writer and suck at editing, and vice versa. Because the skills involved are different. So, you cannot merely transplant people from one position to another, because the so-called more advanced positions might not be what God has given them the gifts to do. And I am not saying people cannot learn, OK? I can get better at editing. But I simply do not have the drive or passion to do that job compared to creating the drafts. Someone else, they might absolutely love to express creativity by cleaning things up in really thoughtful ways and figuring out amazing ways to fix content problems. But I do not. So, I could do an editorial job, but I can guarantee, if that’s all I could do, I would be miserable.

So, that leads to the next point, which is that the creative process gives satisfaction back to the creator. You know, when I write, that feels really satisfying. It’s hopeful and energizing and a whole bunch of other good things. And so when you force someone to take a different position and you use AI to eliminate what they are doing, I think what can happen is that you completely kill their drive. You completely kill the joy they had in work. Now, that is a massive deal, because the majority of us spend the bulk of our day at work. If we don’t like what we’re doing, if we’re not getting anything out of it and just feel like another cog in the wheel, then suddenly not only are you going to disengage from the work, but you can really start feeling like life doesn’t have a point. Because, you know, you’re not really working the way God designed you to work. You’re not using what He built you with or using the tools He gifted to you. And that’s dangerous first because you might not accomplish what He put you here to do, and secondly, if you feel like life doesn’t have a point, you can give up and throw it away more easily. We absolutely need the drive of the creative process to energize us to get up in the morning, and the worry I have with AI is that that drive is being stolen away from us. And the sad thing to me is that it’s being stolen under the pretense that AI is going to set us free, when in reality, it’s not going to always do that.

So, how do we use AI without killing the drive that is a natural byproduct of the way God designed us? If you focus on the fact that the process of creating is strengthening, then I think proper application comes down to whether you stop or severely reduce that process through the AI technology. So, for example, let’s take healthcare. We now have AI that can diagnose cancer just as well as a doctor can. The AI can generate health reports and summarize studies and all of that. But the AI is not doing what the passion of a doctor typically really is, which is to generate healing. The AI is just giving data in different formats. You know, most doctors I know don’t want to be stuck in analytics or research all day. They want to be caring for patients and treating the disease. So if a doctor applies AI, all the AI does is further enable the doctor to creatively improve the health of someone else. The AI actually allows them to focus on the creative process God wants them to use and complete the unique mission they have.

But to go back to the writing example, if someone says the writer has to use AI to generate content, the AI actually stops the creative, you know, get out of the eggshell process the writer normally would use. The writer’s not really thinking or pulling from within themselves anymore to create anything new. They’re just putting out documents that by definition are not creative because they are generated from what already exists. That’s a bad application of AI because, unlike with the doctor example where the AI actually supports the doctor’s natural creative process and goals, for the writer, AI removes the process that person needs to be whole and mature within the skills, talents, and gifts God’s given to them.

So, I guess to summarize that, if implementing the AI is going to support the natural, generative, struggle-inclusive process someone has, then I think that’s fabulous. But if implementing the AI interferes with or replaces that process, then I think that’s potentially very detrimental. But what it means is, as you can see from the doctor and writer examples, the implementation of AI isn’t something you can simply slap on a postcard and send out to everyone. This, I think, is something that has to really be done on a case-by-case basis, not even within industries, but also looking at the individual person. We really have to be considerate of what the skills, talents, and gifts are that each person has so that we understand what their creative process and goals look like and don’t get in the way of that.

All that said, from my own experience, I think one of the biggest signals that the implementation of AI is not appropriate is that people will understandably push back on it. And this is not because they don’t want to learn or can’t train, OK? It’s because they recognize in their gut that the AI is interfering with who they are on a fundamental level. It’s interfering with the benefits they get back from the work they do. Probably the most high-profile example of this is with the strike of the writers and actors from Hollywood in the United States. A lot of that protest connected to pay and appropriate compensation, but a lot of it was the writers and actors trying to remind the studios that those jobs are something the writers and actors genuinely love to do. And speaking as a writer myself, it’s really them fighting for the studios to understand this concept that doing something you love, you know, it’s not right to take that away from people. And that connects to this idea that the people who often are affected by AI are not the ones in positions of power. And I think we have to be careful there, because I think what’s happening is that the people with authority see themselves as doing the quote unquote “little guy” a favor by removing the work they do. You know, they see themselves as saviors for giving people the quote unquote “opportunity” to do what they believe is better work. But I think what they don’t realize is that when you take away that creative process for someone, you’re actually doing damage. You’re not helping them or giving them opportunity. You’re actually stopping them from growing and feeling satisfied because they can’t do what they were built to do. So, I think part of the puzzle is addressing that perception gap and making sure that both sides understand how the people doing the work see what they do and have a grasp of what those people prefer to do.

So, in the end, what it comes down to is asking yourself what it’s worth to ensure that someone stays able to go through that creative process they’re supposed to go through. Because when we talk about the value of AI, we can usually quantify that in terms of, you know, hours gained or money saved. But it’s harder to put a price tag on somebody’s satisfaction and growth. And people have to decide whether they are willing to take a cut in profits in return for people feeling good about what they do. Now, in my mind, there’s no debate there. Giving someone joy in life, that’s priceless. But I think this is a debate we’re going to continue to have for quite a while because it’s so hard for leaders to see anything but profits as the main business priority a lot of the time.

So, I hope this gives you some room for pause at least before you invest in AI or chat with your management about it. And again, I want to be clear, I’m not completely opposed to AI, OK? I think it can be wonderful if we apply it properly. But just like with social media or some of the other tools we have, we have to make choices with it and be responsible. So, I hope that we can slow down a little and make our decisions considering that, and that we’re not blinded so much by money that we steamroll the people who need some protection.

With all that, let’s pray.

Lord, we don’t know yet the ramifications AI is going to have on us. So I pray you’ll help us not get lost in the shiny trend of all this. I pray that you’ll help us love our neighbor by making us more aware of the skills and talents and gifts each person has, and that you’ll humble us to respect their creative processes so they can grow, even if their processes are different than our own. In Jesus’ name, I pray. Amen.

That about does it, listeners. If you’re up for it, send me a message, let me know how you are approaching AI, either personally or in your business. When two weeks go by on the calendar, I’m gonna go live with an episode on vacations. It’s that time of year where people are traveling, right? Taking time off? But how in the world do you do that without losing your mind and stressing out? I’ll give you some pointers, but until then, be blessed.