hen Roland Barthes argued against any definitive explanation of a text coming from the author’s intentions, he may not have envisioned a future devoid of any definitive author, let alone the meaning elicited through their work. “To give a text an author” and attribute a single, corresponding interpretation to it “is to impose a limit on that text,” he concludes. Considering this, the AI has worked in favour of Barthes by diluting the substantive focus of an author, while creating a collage of diverse inputs shovelled into the limitless algorithmic tunnels.

However, his emphasis on the primacy of each individual reader’s interpretation of the work and, resultantly, their unique insights about it poses a problem to the texts generated through AI. It is because the AI has not only acquired the status of the author but it has become the reader per se; selecting, sifting and pushing forward what it obtains through repeated patterns, which suppresses creativity and uniqueness necessary for the production of texts. While acknowledging the informed and ethical use of AI, my article argues against its impersonating and automating traits that may deprive the future of writers capable of creating perennial texts.

Before I identify the AI conundrum and discuss whether the creator or the author’s identity is in jeopardy in the face of growing reliance on artificial intelligence, let us first look into the process that helps germinate creation. Creativity requires an ‘optimal experience’ that illustrates the condition of being in a state of enjoyment and exhilaration. These moments require effort and challenge rather than a passive or relaxing state of mind and being.

This point takes us to the creative personality theory developed by MihalyCsikszentmihalyi, according to which creativity depends on the personality of the individuals. Creative people experience a “flow” which allows them complete immersion in the activity, which relies on the challenge it poses to an individual. These rare and immersive moments evoke a pulsating zone characterised by openness, risk-taking, curiosity and independent thought processes.

With a focus on the cognitive abilities of individuals, the dual process theory of creativity constitutes intuitive and analytical processes; whereas the first helps in generating spontaneous ideas, the second evaluates, refines and revises them. This perspective leads to divergent and convergent thinking, which emphasise multiplicity and singularity of ideas and solutions, respectively. The question arises: Is AI capable of performing both functions? If yes, then is Yuval Noah right in saying that human beings have been hacked? By hacking humans, he means having unlimited data and being able to have the extraordinary power of computation that allows the generation of algorithms which can now tap into the nuances of human thought.

The social personality model of creativity, as its title suggests, focuses on individual creativity with reference to the social and cultural contexts. In this model, the social environment is crucial in stimulating and sustaining creativity. Creativity thrives in collaborative environments which offer opportunities for social exchange. Sociality, accordingly to this model, is critically important to stimulate and sustain creativity.

From the above-mentioned three models of creativity, it becomes acutely obvious that creativity depends on three Cs: curiosity, critical thinking and challenge. At this juncture, can we then conclude that over-reliance on AI will diminish opportunities for individuals to think critically and engage and develop intellectual processes? In other words, are we suggesting the death of the creator and the birth of an all-powerful tool having the power to shape and mould human ideas?

Let me go back to Roland Barthes, who argues that once words are created, their meaning is shaped by readers. This makes the process of meaning-making fluid and decentralised. Barthes questions authorship, where the creator as an ultimate authority on their work guides the reader to the work’s understanding. In both Barthes’ perspective and the AI debate, authorship becomes a questionable phenomenon. The notion that the author is dead suggests that meaning is finally freefrom the authorial chains. The death of creativity through AI advocates that the author is supplanted by algorithms.

There is a fear that AI’s ability to mimic the three Cs of human creativity can undermine human authorship, which will make the boundaries between human creativity and machine-produced work indistinguishable. However, this parallel also suggests the death of the reader. Excessive reliance on AI may not only further replicate the Platonic idea of imitation but also train the human eye to digest repetitive patterns, leading to stereotypes and biases.

Overreliance on monotonous datasets encourages normativity and standardisation, which pushes human creativity to an oppressive chamber offering nothing more than a temporary feeling of achievement that gradually lures the mind towards an anaesthetic phase. Without nuanced and original thinking, human beings may never venture into the unknown territories of imagination and uncomfortable connectivity that allow breakthroughs and innovation to happen.

How can we take back what belongs to us? In other words, how can creators develop strategies to decolonise their creative landscape? The conundrum can be addressed by creating three more Cs parallel with our previously developed three Cs.

The first one is ‘collaboration (with AI).’This allows us to use it togenerate suggestions, brainstorm ideas and explore visual concepts that we may not have conceived otherwise. AI, in this scenario, should be seen as a ‘partner’ in creative endeavours, rather than a replacement for human creativity.

The second C stands for ‘contrivance.’ This suggests a machine-human relationship whereby the latter utilises AI’s skills to open avenues for exploration that may not have been previously accessible to human creators. This may involve proposing new genres, forms and techniques that the human mind and intellect can further refine.

The third C is for ‘communitarianism,’ through which AI production is used to democratise art by making it accessible to all. Rather than suppressing creativity, it offers an opportunity to foster creativity. With AI within reach, a creative mind may develop the foundation that was previously denied to it due to an inequitable division of resources.

It may seem threatening for a creative mind to absorb the predominance of AI in the creative landscape, but the death of the author, apparently threatened by AI, may lead to the birth of a ‘thinker,’ who makes things happen through the sheer power of imagination and reasoning.

The writer is a professor and dean at the School of Liberal Arts, University of Management and Technology, Lahore