The Inevitable Backlash, and Finding a Balance
Our industry is no stranger to change. We tend to thrive on the next big thing, and right now, that big thing is AI. But because AI is such a complicated topic, and we’re really just at the very beginning of what generative AI can do for us, it comes with more than the usual pushback.
With generative AI, even though mainstream adaptation is fairly new, the backlash is already on full blast. People have started using the phrase "created by AI" as an insult, mocking the machine learning’s idea of our human lives through the lens of tools like ChatGPT and Midjourney. I also think it’s going to become more of a shorthand for something that lacks a human touch, the kind of touch that's missing when you type in a few words, press a button, and publish the result.
I’m feeling a Human-Made Renaissance® of sorts coming as we sort out how to best collaborate with our new robot friends.
And that’s cool – bring it on. Because no good work should ever look like it was made by AI. No communication that can truly connect with a human can be made solely by AI. The human aspect cannot (and should not) be undervalued or dismissed.
With any big technological advancement, there is often a healthy mix of excitement, fear and skepticism. As usual, there are two camps I see setting up – one group has turned their back on generative AI fully, slamming the door shut and saying anyone using it is a sell-out. Another is the group that is fully onboard and thinks it will do all their work for them while they sit at home and count money.
Again, I feel like these are both bad takes and are both wrong (for this industry).
When digital music media first started getting popular, there was a huge resurgence in vinyl. Audiophiles were up in arms about how digital media didn’t offer the same warmth and richness of sound that you got from a record player. Vinyl went from basically dead to the comeback kid and record stores (and my husband) breathed a huge sigh of relief.
The same sort of situation arose when e-books and readers like Kindle were released. There were fears that traditional publishing would die out. But a lot of humans like to hold actual books in their hands and turn real pages. There are even studies suggesting that you get better retention when you read from a physical vs electronic source.
Another example would be analogue and digital photography. When digital cameras started to appear, it lowered the bar to success, giving the average person a better chance at getting a quality shot. But the technology here went in a few different directions, making super high end digital cameras mostly for commercial usage, and at the same time, cameras added to phones gave the average person little need for a second device, especially as the output got crazy good. Analogue photography, however, still has avid fans and everything from 35mm film to instant film can still be found pretty easily.
Obla-di, Obla-da, and so on. These are just the examples that come to mind, as I saw them happen first hand: The hot new thing seemed like it was going to wipe out the old technology, but it doesn’t. Sometimes it makes the older version seem kind of niche, or eccentric, but often it boosts its value. People today appreciate records for not only the higher quality audio, but the larger space to tell a story visually. Liner notes, the sleeve and even the record itself offer places for a rich graphic experience you won’t get on Spotify. Digital filters offer film grain as an option to give your iPhone pics a more analogue feel, and while a lot of bookstores went out of business (that’s on Amazon), getting a physical book is still an absolute joy.
My point is that "old" doesn’t get simply replaced by "new." But in this case, when it comes to generative AI, it’s not even possible for that to happen because without humans feeding it actual ideas, the AI will only produce generic, cookie cutter content.
I fully believe that AI, like any tool, is only as good or as bad as we make it and a lot of people will be fine with the “meh” result. The good work, however, is going to win out. The human-led work that makes it look like there was no AI involved at all.
Because when you use AI as part of a human-led partnership, it can be a collaborator, but will never be the author*. Working with AI in the background as a starting point and not a solution – telling it what you want, adjusting your prompt and then taking it as a jumping-off point – keeps the humanity and your intent intact. When you take the lead, your vision, your idea, and your craft will shine through. Generative AI should just make it easier for you to get there.
In the grand scheme of things, the push and pull between the "old" and the "new" is nothing more than the dance of progress. From the resurgence of vinyl records to the continued love for physical books and the appreciation of analogue photography, to moving from press-type to cloud-based typography solutions, it doesn't mean the end of what came before.
In advertising, it's no different. Generative AI doesn't signal the death knell for human creativity — far from it. It could, however, be the start of a new era complete with a new definition of what's possible.
Instead of a Human-Made Renaissance®, how about a Human-Led Renaissance©?
Learning to work with generative AI tools in healthy balance with the other skills you already have makes a lot of sense. Learning to understand where and how they can help you rather than either extreme: Turning away and mocking their use, or over-hyping them as magic buttons is the sweet spot is where I urge you to go. Hang out there for a bit, play around and get comfy, experiment, and see how it can help your creative process.
And then, I'd love to hear your story. How has AI helped you in your work? What are some of the barriers you faced and how did you break through? Have you been able to reach a balance between human creativity and machine efficiency? What’s your favorite album and why is it by Guided by Voices?
*I often start an article by having a point of view on something, then going to ChatGPT, telling it my take and asking a few questions. I then ask it to write a version for me. It’s always something that looks good when I first see it, and it’s always something that as I start editing I end up completely ditching. This is my process, and it doesn’t mean that it has to be yours. But I find that it’s great for giving me something to work AGAINST almost, if that makes sense. Also, Photoshop Beta with Midjourney is so much fun to play with, I actually want to write more articles just so I can illustrate them.