Imagining a Hopeful Future with AI

Important

• Don't miss our upcoming research webinar on generative AI search at 1pm PT on Tuesday, June 11, 2024. Register for the webinar via the link in this post.

Imagining a Hopeful Future with AI

On October 12th in Bend, Oregon, we will open the doors to The Imagining Summit—an event that aims to seed a better future through the collaborative exploration of AI's potential to amplify human creativity, culture, and understanding.

At the Imagining Summit, we aim for productive imagination—the process of envisioning possibilities that extend beyond our current experience. Through creative exploration and collaboartive discussion, we seek to shift perspectives and imagine a path to a hopeful future with AI.

Together, we will craft a new vision and design philosophy for human-machine collaboration—in which AI serves as a Mind for our Minds, amplifying humanity's creativity, culture, knowledge, trust, values, fun, play, and understanding of the world. We will synthesize this work into a collectively authored report shared after the Summit, with the hope of catalyzing change.

We acknowledge the profound, even existential, risks presented by adopting AI. We reject the utopian AI rhetoric, fear Big Tech's fantasy to make machines that replace us, and worry about the impact of the unthinking AI hypesters and influencers. While we believe it is important to reveal and address these problems and challenges, we also believe it is important to imagine a future which surpasses the negative.

The Imagining Summit provides an opportunity to set aside the current hype and future fears to imagine a future we can hope for. Because if we can imagine it, we have a shot at creating it.

The Imagining Summit will feature a series of conversations and collaborative sessions led by some of our favorite minds, including Jonathan Coulton, Adam Cutler, Katie Davis, Josh Lovejoy, Don Norman, Steven Sloman, Barbara Tversky, and more. These conversation catalysts will bring rich and thought-provoking ideas to help lead all collaborators in an exploration of the possible.

Due to limited space, The Imagining Summit will be invite-only event. Please check out the details here and fill-in the form or simply reply to this email to indicate your interest. We look forward to bringing together a creative, diverse group of imaginative thinkers and innovators who share our hope for the future and are crazy enough to think we can collectively change things.

We’re excited to welcome our community in person. And we highly encourage you to extend your stay to enjoy beautiful Bend, Oregon.

This Week from Artificiality

• Our Ideas: Decoding the Complexity of Innovation with AI. AI and network analysis reveal innovation's complex structure, manage creative tensions, and amplify human potential by uncovering patterns in invention data. AI guides the process, but human intuition remains crucial in navigating the unequal market of ideas. Both nature's and human innovations are highly complex, often involving fruitless paths, dead ends, and setbacks. We constantly strive to make innovation more efficient, systematic, and predictable. However, this desire conflicts with a fundamental aspect of creativity: its wandering, unpredictable, and serendipitous nature. True innovation—whether it involves inventing, exploring, or breaking paradigms—is much harder and more likely to fail. Is this kind of innovation computable? By applying machine learning and network analysis to creativity, we have new insights into the structure of innovation. Can these insights help us become more innovative ourselves?
• The Science: Is AI Really as Creative as Humans? Recently, several papers have been published with headlines claiming that AI is more creative than humans. Personally, these headlines makes us anxious. We deeply value creativity as an expression of individuality and humanity. Our bias is to view our entire human endeavor as centered on creativity—not just in art, music, and traditionally creative professions, but also in how we advance knowledge and solve complex problems. Helen digs into research into AI's "creative potential," claims of material science discoveries, and reflects on our own experience from running workshops on creativity and generative AI.
• Conversations: Jonathan Feinstein and The Context of Creativity. An interview with Jonathan Feinstein, professor at the Yale School of Management and author of Creativity in Large-Scale Contexts: Guiding Creative Engagement and Exploration. Through his research and interviews with a wide range of creative individuals, from artists and writers to scientists and entrepreneurs, Jonathan has developed a framework for understanding the creative process as an unfolding journey over time. He introduces key concepts such as guiding conceptions, guiding principles, and the notion of finding "golden seeds" amidst the vast landscape of information and experiences that shape our creative context. By looking at creativity mathematically, Jonathan has exposed the tremendous beauty of the creative process as being intuitive, exploratory, and supported by math and machines, and knowledge and structure. He shows how creativity is much broader and more interesting than the stereotypical idea of creativity as simply a singular lightbulb moment. In our conversation, we explore some of the most surprising and counterintuitive findings from Jonathan's work, how his ideas challenge conventional wisdom about creativity, and the implications for individuals and organizations seeking to innovate in an increasingly AI-driven world.

Bits & Bytes from Elsewhere

• Time published an article by Michelle Peng about how AI can be used to help individuals improve their job skills and performance, based on a report by Charter. The article highlights five promising use cases for AI-based training: curriculum development, skills practice, AI tutor and content enhancement, mentorship and connection, and skills assessment. The article quotes Helen and the report quotes us both—check them out!
• Wired covered an interesting story about yet another data danger with AI. Just weeks ahead of the launch of Microsoft's Recall system, Alex Hagenah has released his TotalRecall system to show the insecurity of Microsoft's new feature. Recall takes a screenshot of a Windows user's screen every five seconds with the intent of being able to retrieve things and provide data fodder for AI systems. While Microsoft touted the advantage of the screenshots staying on the user computer, Hagenah shows how easy it is for TotalRecall to find and access the unencrypted database in which the screen data is stored.
• The New York Times published an article by Peter Baker of Tracks on Tracks about the Apple Crush ad which says that people "found it gross and offensive. This is because we haven’t just discarded our expectation of novel new technology. We’ve also replaced it with a growing awareness of tech’s aims: the data-harvesting, the desire to increase screen time at any cost, the monopolistic business practices, the A.I. tools that threaten artistic careers."
• TechCrunch covered the enormous growth of Cara, an "artist-run, anti-AI social platform" which grew from 40,000 to 650,000 users in a week. Founded by Jingna Zhang who has taken on AI company hoovering of artists' works through multiple lawsuits, Cara offers artists a space to share their work with protection through a partership with the University of Chicago's Glaze project. Note: We regularly re-evaluate Artificiality's use of generative AI tools—but we have never—and will never—create images in the style of any artist. While our use of Midjourney images may be an imperfect answer based on the training process, it's the best process we have for now.
• Responsible Statecraft has a fun article sharing comments overheard at a recent Silicon Valley / military industrial complex pow-wow called the Artificial Intelligence Expo for National Competitiveness. One favorite: “'A decade ago Silicon Valley didn’t agree with the DOD mission — they’ve done a complete 180.' Translation: Retaliating against all those tech worker sit-ins and union organizing was really effective."

Helen's Books of the Week

Two books this week:

The Age of Magical Overthinking, Notes on Modern Irrationality, by Amanda Montell

Montell, the author of Cultish and Wordslut, asks: How do we escape the relentless cycle of confusion, obsession, second-guessing, and information overload? She explores the dilemmas of the 21st century, noting how "magical thinking"—the belief that our internal thoughts and feelings can influence unrelated external events—is unraveling our society.

The book reads more like a series of essays than a cohesive narrative, but Montell highlights the mismatch between our brain's functioning and a world dominated by the internet, media saturation, and AI systems.

Montell's modern, social media, celebrity-centric take on cognitive biases is often a cheeky perspective. The book is accessible and true to the scholarship behind the scenes, including some of our favorite scholars: Steven Sloman and Barbara Tversky both feature at points.

I couldn't find much on overthinking itself, despite searching for it. Maybe overthinking is just something we all do in our 30s. I know I did.

The book can give you a different kind of insight into cognitive biases. But it doesn't help you head them off. For that, I'd recommend pairing this book with ours—Make Better Decisions—where we take the scholarship (including Sloman's and Tversky's) to help you develop a practice in this zone.

The Battle for Your Brain, Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology, Nita A. Farahany

I read this book a year ago when it first came out. If you haven't noticed the rapid advances in brain-computer interfaces and neuro-tech used for marketing and job surveillance, now is the time to pay attention. This book is concerned with the future of our cognitive liberties in a world where our thoughts and mental states can be monitored, manipulated, and commodified.

Farahany is an expert in the ethics of neuroscience. She describes examples of brain-tracking technologies that are being used today as well what's coming. A world where your brain's activity can reveal your political beliefs, your thoughts can be used as evidence in court, and your emotions can be manipulated by external forces is no longer science fiction. Farahany lays out the urgent need for safeguards to protect fundamental human rights.

Farahany's argument includes an exploration of "cognitive liberty"—the right to self-determination of our thoughts and mental experiences. It's not too far in the future when AirPods or other wearables will be able to translate our thoughts. Staying informed about these issues now is a smart move.

Facts & Figures about AI & Complex Change

• 72%: Percentage of organizations in 2024 that have adopted AI in at least 1 business function, up from 55% in 2023. (McKinsey)
• 50%: Percentage of organizations in 2024 that have adopted AI in at least 2 or more business functions, up from 31% in 2023. (McKinsey)
• 65%: Percentage of organizations in 2024 that have adopted generative AI, up from 33% in 2023. (McKinsey)
• 39%: Percentage of individuals reporting regular use of generative AI for work. (McKinsey)

• 34%: Percentage of organizations reporting regular use of generative AI in marketing and sales. (McKinsey)
• 37%: Percentage of organizations reporting a cost decrease of more than 10% from generative AI adoption in marketing & sales. (McKinsey)
• 53%: Percentage of organizations reporting an increase of revenue of more than 5% from generative AI adoption in marketing & sales. (McKinsey)

• 17%: Percentage of organizations reporting regular use of generative AI in IT. (McKinsey)
• 42%: Percentage of organizations reporting a cost decrease of more than 10% from generative AI adoption in IT. (McKinsey)
• 56%: Percentage of organizations reporting an increase of revenue of more than 5% from generative AI adoption in IT. (McKinsey)

• 17%: Percentage of organizations reporting regular use of generative AI in services operations. (McKinsey)
• 45%: Percentage of organizations reporting a cost decrease of more than 10% from generative AI adoption in services operations. (McKinsey)
• 45%: Percentage of organizations reporting an increase of revenue of more than 5% from generative AI adoption in services operations. (McKinsey)

• 12%: Percentage of organizations reporting regular use of generative AI in human resources. (McKinsey)
• 50%: Percentage of organizations reporting a cost decrease of more than 10% from generative AI adoption in human resources. (McKinsey)
• 33%: Percentage of organizations reporting an increase of revenue of more than 5% from generative AI adoption in human resources. (McKinsey)

• 20%: Percentage of companies which spend more than 10% of their digital budgets on generative AI. (McKinsey)
• 37%: Percentage of technology companies which spend more than 10% of their digital budgets on generative AI. (McKinsey)
• 33%: Percentage of energy and materials companies which spend more than 10% of their digital budgets on generative AI. (McKinsey)
• 15%: Percentage of financial services companies which spend more than 10% of their digital budgets on generative AI. (McKinsey)
• 17%: Percentage of media & telecommunications companies which spend more than 10% of their digital budgets on generative AI. (McKinsey)
• 12%: Percentage of consumer goods & retail companies which spend more than 10% of their digital budgets on generative AI. (McKinsey)