The dichotomy of human creativity and automation
We must view AI as a tool that can enhance human creativity rather than replace it.
OpenAI’s latest marketing campaign unlocked a lot of thoughts and feelings around “The Intelligence Era” — where we’re at with AI, advertising, human creativity, technology, art, expression, + where we’re going.
In NYC? Join us in Williamsburg this Tuesday March 18th at The Brass Factory for Digital Asset Summit. Sign up here.
There seems to be this convergence between the artificial and the organic, the automated and the crafted, the perfect and the imperfect, the human and the robot.
Many are looking to AI as an existential threat against human potential. I, on the other hand, as I’ve said for over six years now dating back to my “AI Won’t Replace Humans In Music” article originally published in 2018, view AI as a tool that can enhance human creativity rather than replace it.
Here’s some good news: OpenAI’s $14M Super Bowl spot was entirely made by humans. Or more specifically, it was made by humans who leveraged tech that likely included aspects of automation and artificial intelligence – but none of the ad itself used AI-generated content.
I don’t think we’re anywhere near a world where an award-winning ad spot can be generated solely through creative direction. It’ll always require teams with specialized skillsets to produce something impressive. I’ll explain why below.
First, it’s important to note OpenAI had a brand refresh this month.
Love it or hate it, the rebrand was done in collaboration between OpenAI’s in-house design team and two indie Euro studios – Dinamo and Studio Dumbar. A quick LinkedIn search tells me both companies sit under 50 in-house employees.
Very very interesting. So let me get this straight:
The largest AI company in the world (besides Apple and NVIDIA) just hired two indie design studios for a 9-month collaboration, spending $14M on a single spot, using zero AI-generated content.
And you’re worried AI is going to take your job?
AI amplifies what you are. If you are lazy and untalented, AI will make you more lazy and untalented. If you are motivated and gifted, AI can amplify that too.
If you are a really good guitarist, you don’t need a computer to play guitar well.
However, a good guitarist can use a computer to improve their craft. They can access a global library of infinite resources in seconds, leveraging tech to practice faster and smarter.
Someone who doesn’t know how to play guitar might want to use a computer to learn how to play, or create a sound they like.
In theory, anyone in the world can play guitar with a computer. But they'll never sound as good as a real guitarist. They will be limited by the confines of digital realms.
Computers can’t play off acoustics and intonation and timbre and rhythm in the same way a real nuts and bolts guitar can.
The same goes for using AI. And all forms of art and creativity / production / product building.
Great engineers use automation and AI to move faster. Those who don’t know how to code can now create code, but their outputs remain slow and mediocre and limited.
I just met a team in our office trying to build a real app inside their company leveraging Replit, V0, Cursor, and GPT (they don’t know how to code) and they’ve been hitting a wall. Many such cases.
By comparison, a talented engineer can build something 10x better 10x faster for 1/10 of the cost.
We are entering a golden era for talented creatives and engineers. Perhaps this will exacerbate the talent gap and meritocracy will propagate inequality to the point where institutions will have to intervene and offer purpose for the mass majority.
But I do envision a brighter future, one in which the most creative minds of highest agency can realize their infinite imagination — and the rest of humanity can return to what we humans know best, a love of family, knowledge, and leisure.
In the meantime, fans are super sensitive about how AI is being utilized in the creative world. Just like how film photographers were sensitive to digital, and paper mills were sensitive to computers.
It’s about the art, not the process
For our video release of Gambino’s song ‘Sweet Thang’ last week, fans were more concerned about whether we used AI in our new Gambino animation release than the artwork itself.
This week, we dropped our visuals for “Sweet Thang,” featured on Childish Gambino’s limited edition “Atavista” vinyl. The reception has been… mixed.
Beehiiv won’t let me upload big files but you can view our release breakdown here.
Our visuals ran about 5 minutes and the complete vinyl contains over two hours of footage.
Many fans felt the music got lost in “AI slop.”
There’s a whole Reddit thread dissecting it, if you’re curious. Ironically, our “Sweet Thang” visuals used no AI at all. We sculpted a clay model of Donald, then 3D-scanned it to bring him to life on-screen.
The AI-backlash got me thinking — the way we approach technology in creative projects is totally wrong.
When you watch a great animated show, whether it’s South Park, Wallace and Gromit, Rick and Morty, or Cowboy Bebop, does the average fan really care if it’s made in Blender, Cinema 4D, or by hand? People appreciate art for the storytelling, the style, and the emotional impact, not the specific tools behind it.
AI is just another tool. If you rely on automated features in Adobe Creative Suite, is your work now “AI-generated”?
If you produce a piece that resonates with people, does it matter to the average person how you made it?
Yes, there’s a legitimate conversation to be had about AI pulling from artists’ work without compensation, but there’s also a new wave of opportunity for those same artists. AI can expand what’s possible, especially for people who don’t have traditional technical or artistic training.
Supernova is a creative agency. We craft visuals and experiences for future-forward brands.