Is AI Killing the Creativity It Promised to Enhance?

AI’s efficiency obsession is sidelining the messy, human magic of creation. In a world where generative AI churns out essays, art, and code in seconds, USC’s Adam Russell and researcher Maxyn Leitner warn we’re trading depth of process for instant gratification. From Taiko drumming to combating online hate speech, why does the journey matter more than the destination? Let’s dive in.

🌍 The Process Paradox: When Speed Eclipses Substance

• Homogenization of Creativity: Generative AI models trained on vast datasets risk producing formulaic outputs, mirroring the “lowest common denominator” of human expression rather than true innovation.
• Emotional Toll: Researchers like Leitner studying online hate speech face burnout from constant exposure to toxicity—a problem AI tools can’t resolve without human contextual understanding.
• Lost in Translation: Taiko drumming’s physicality and communal rhythm (which Leitner practices) highlight how AI’s focus on end products ignores the catharsis and growth inherent in creative processes.
• Community Erosion: The internet’s shift from niche forums to algorithm-driven platforms has diluted authentic knowledge-sharing that once thrived in specialized online spaces.

✅ Solutions: Reclaiming Humanity in the Age of Automation

1. Interdisciplinary Collaboration ✅

ISI’s fusion of AI experts like Russell with anthropologists and ethicists creates guardrails against dehumanized outputs. Example: AI models trained to flag misinformation now incorporate cultural nuance from social scientists.

2. Process-Centric AI Design ✅

Leitner advocates for tools that augment rather than replace human creativity—think AI drumming assistants that respond to a performer’s heartbeat, not just sheet music.

3. “Slow AI” Movements ✅

Inspired by Japan’s wabi-sabi philosophy, researchers are prototyping AI that logs and values iterative drafts and “failed” attempts in creative workflows.

⚠️ Roadblocks: Why Fixing This Won’t Be Easy

• 🚧 Tech Limitations: Current LLMs can’t replicate the embodied learning required for arts like Taiko—no algorithm captures the sting of drumstick blisters.
• ⚠️ Corporate Resistance: Most AI firms prioritize user engagement metrics over preserving creative journeys. As Leitner notes: “Platforms reward virality, not vulnerability.”
• ⚡ Emotional Labor: Moderators using AI to filter hate speech still endure psychological strain—machines handle scale, not healing.

🚀 Final Thoughts: Can We Code Creativity Back In?

The path forward demands:

• 📈 Valuing Process Metrics: Track time spent iterating, not just output quantity
• 🤖 Hybrid Systems: AI as a collaborator (e.g., suggesting chord progressions) rather than a composer
• 🎨 Ethical Training Data: Compensating living artists whose work fuels generative models

As Leitner’s drumming reminds us: Rhythm isn’t just about beats—it’s the spaces between them. Shouldn’t AI honor that pause? What’s your take?

Let us know on X (Former Twitter)

Sources: Nina Moothedath. “AI is making outputs more accessible, forgetting the value of the process”, May 14, 2025. https://viterbischool.usc.edu/news/2025/05/ai-is-making-outputs-more-accessible-forgetting-the-value-of-the-process/