Creatives' Value and AI

Thinking in different gravities unlocks the interoperability of creativity. Induction and deduction are throttles of idea generation. Arguably, one of the main goals of design—and the technology downstream of it—is to scale information.

Goals are comprised of a collection of procedures. However, the procedures are conditional to the medium, creator, or substrate to which the goals belong. “Being full” is a different statement for a child, hard drive, or donation box. Protocols scale procedures better than goals when these factors are static. If we are only ever talking about hard drives, then we can talk in kilobytes to describe “fullness” with more accuracy and speed.

The value of creativity is delegated by the faculty and the speed of traversing phenomena over protocols. So why do most creative tools rely on protocols and their procedures rather than goals?

When using these tools, the creative’s task is to translate goals into procedures. An idea manifests itself as a goal, and selecting and using a programming language, brush, or ingredient is needed to meet that goal. These tools are maximally presenting protocols, and the creative’s job—in this scenario—is to select them. This is why confident competency is so important in creativity—you know how to select procedures and follow protocols. However, this is increasingly becoming a computer’s job.

Automation and “AI” technologies are proven to be less effective when faced with goal-driven challenges than procedure-driven challenges.

How might tools abstract the translation of goals into procedures without losing creative value gained by speed? What is creative mastery of procedures compared to creative mastery of goals?

What is the contrast between i) phenomena and goals and ii) procedures and protocols?