The point
More thoughts on AI as a tool for creative expression
OpenAI’s future CEO of Applications, Fidji Simo, shared a public memo earlier this week called “AI as the greatest source of empowerment for all.” If you haven’t read it yet, I think you should (after reading this, of course)!
I recommend it for a few reasons. In addition to being written by a person who will soon be in a powerful role at a very powerful company that will likely impact the future of humanity 🫠, it was also a refreshingly different tone from typical AI doom-and-gloom and a good counterpoint to the sloptimist take I shared a few weeks ago. Instead, as the title implies, Simo paints a picture of AI as a tool for empowerment across a range of human activities, including one near and dear to my heart: creative making.
Digging into the memo
A friend shared this memo with me after she saw there was a section on “Creative Expression.” And it starts off with something that could’ve been pulled straight from the Practice memo:
“I believe that we are all born creators, and that the ability to imagine something and make it real is a big part of what makes us human.”
So when I read it, I did a double take. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! This has been a fire in my belly for years, long before Ben and I dreamt up Practice.
Making things is core to humanity. But many of us have sadly lost touch with this instinct. Practice is all about helping you reconnect with creative hobbies and make space for making. It is why I’ve been writing this weekly Substack for the past year, why we built an app, why we’re pursuing more funding. It is the point.
Behavior vs. outcome
Simo’s “Creative Expression” opener knocked it out of the park for me. And I couldn’t wait to see how she’d weave in AI.
But as I kept reading, I started to feel a bit...complicated.
“The problem is that our ability to express that creativity is often limited by our skill sets. Not everyone has the resources, time, or training to paint, write, compose, or build.”
Yes, so true! Love the idea of reducing barriers and helping people express themselves, unlocking ideas previously trapped behind skill walls and therefore democratizing expression! So maybe AI can provide training, or get us to post-scarcity so we can all have more resources and leisure time so we can spend more time making?🤞🤞🤞
Oh...that was not her point. She continues:
“When I imagine the future, it often comes to me in images. I paint in my spare time, but the images in my head are so much more realistic and complex than what I am able to paint today. Now, AI is collapsing the distance between imagination and execution. With AI and image generation, I can prompt and iterate until the output matches the complexity and realism of the vision in my head.”
This is where I got uncomfortable. Simo appears to center the problem (and solution) on output and efficiency. I’m making some assumptions here, but it’s as if she thinks the goal of creative making is perfectly expressing an idea—rather than a behavior, like a bee building a hive, that’s meaningful in and of itself.
It discounts the fact that so much magic and satisfaction can come from the work and effort it takes to try to express a creative idea or otherwise work on a creative practice. The mess you make, the problem solving, the things you learn, and the failures. The parts that create resiliency and lead to unexpected outcomes.
As Ben wrote a few weeks back (and I wholeheartedly agree): speed and reduction of friction in a non-monetized creative hobby isn’t the point.
The gap
I was chatting about this with my friend, Annie, and she referenced a quote from Ira Glass about the beginner’s gap between taste/vision and skill. Sounds familiar, right?
Glass proposes a non-AI solution to gap angst: close it by doing “a lot of work.” Here is the quote in video form, created by Daniel Sax:
If you use AI to jump over the gap, skip the mess, and get to exactly what you envisioned without putting in the work, you may miss some magic. You’ll miss the deviations that naturally occur in the process of translating an idea to something tangible, and the delightful way those deviations can lead to different ideas or a different-but-better outcome than you envisioned. And you also won’t be building the foundational skills that help you progress.
But, I have time, resources, and a long history of making things. I studied art in college. I’ve always been crafty. So while I do meander a bit as I explore how to convert an idea into reality, I don’t usually experience the frustration of a massive gap between what I imagine and what I can create. And, as a result, I may be underestimating the empowering nature of AI-enabled creative expression that Simo is excited about. Especially for those who have previously been so disappointed by their gap that they’ve quit making, as Ira Glass describes.
I nonetheless experience friction as I’m making. And when I compare my first dollhouse to my most recent diorama, my improvement is palpable. The hundreds of sessions I’ve spent practicing my craft have led me to create better outcomes. Better than I could have possibly imagined. But, again: that really isn’t the point. The point was the joy of making. The deeply satisfying process of trying to create.
Trying not to yuck your yum
My friend Annie (who shared the Ira Glass quote) is a talented designer and artist. She probably has the smallest gap between what she can imagine and what she can create with her own hands of anyone I know. And she has made the choice to use AI as a tool for creative expression. Not to skip steps, but to create something imbued with meaning.
Annie is working on a project called Soft Matter where she “considers what it means to preserve something that never existed—to give weight to the ephemeral, and to hold fiction with a kind of tenderness all its own.” She is generating a series of photos that she carefully prompts and then prints on analog film and hand frames, challenging the transient impermanence associated with AI-generated imagery.
So, she is putting in the work, in many ways. And her creations feel far from AI slop. They have depth. They embody a sense of life and spirit that I rarely feel from AI-generated imagery, perhaps because she is using intention and effort to express a specific idea rather than focusing on speed-to-slop.
Much like my experience when I view other art, this intentionality and thoughtfulness seems to mystically shine through the pieces. And she is finding joy in this form of creative making. So, who am I to judge?
The point
Let’s return to Simo’s memo:
“[AI powered creative expression] doesn’t take away from the magic of painting. I still paint—in fact, being able to see my visions on the screen helps me to get them onto canvas. But if AI gives everyone access to the tools to transform their ideas into images, stories, or songs, it will make the world a much richer place.”
While I am still a bit skeptical, I appreciate this optimistic view of an AI-powered future. And I am so glad Fidji Simo is still picking up a paint brush, and relishing in the tactility and messy humanity of making something. That she still sees the value in the process and is using AI as a supporting tool—rather than a replacement—for her analog making.
Still, I wonder if she’s dreaming of a shortcut that will unintentionally cut out some of the joy of making?
But that’s because, for me, making things with my hands—away from a screen—is calming, playful, and deeply human. I am commonly delighted by the outcome, but it’s not why I like doing it or what motivates me to continue making. It’s the process. The work.
The messy humanity of it is the point. For me.
Annie!