Artificial Intelligence: the murder of intellectual and creative faculties in the post-human world

However, it soon became one of the main drivers of numerous philosophical, social and scientific debates. But there is a deep concern that threatens the very essence of human creativity, embodied in the idea of the ‘murder of intellectual and creative faculties’, a characteristic that once distinguished human beings.

In this article, we aim to delve into this issue with a philosophical and critical eye, moving away from a purely technological approach to address its impact on creative and cognitive thinking, in light of real statements from experts that add a touch of realism and analysis.

Before analysing the impact of AI on creativity, it is necessary to define the nature of this concept. Artificial Intelligence refers to the ability of machines to simulate human mental processes such as learning, reasoning and decision-making. With the rapid development of this field, there are now robots capable of writing poetry, composing music and even creating works of art.

But what happens when machines surpass humans in areas that were previously considered exclusive to human intellect? Many philosophers and specialists in Artificial Intelligence disagree when answering this question. While some argue that these tools will raise the level of creative production, others warn that they could destroy creativity itself and lead to the ‘annihilation of the intellectual faculties’ that make up the essence of humanity.

In this sense, American philosopher Herbert Marcuse believed that ‘technology becomes an instrument of domination and control of human beings, rather than being at their service.’ From this perspective, AI ceases to be a simple support tool and becomes a threat to the core of thought and humanity.

The impact of Artificial Intelligence is not limited to technical or industrial fields, but infiltrates the depths of art and thought. In literature, for example, AI can generate texts with a high degree of realism and complexity, to the point where it is difficult to distinguish between the human and the programmed. In music, there are already programmes capable of composing musical pieces that vibrate with emotion and life, raising the question: can machines replace human creativity?

Robotics professor Thomas Dennard stated at a conference on the future of Artificial Intelligence that ‘AI could replace creative people in many areas, leading to the total disappearance of creative jobs in the near future.’ Thus, the debate arises: are we killing creativity, or will this technology give rise to a new form of human creativity?

The underlying problem is that Artificial Intelligence operates using algorithms designed to replicate known and reliable patterns. Human creativity, on the other hand, is based on chaos, difference and surprise, qualities that escape any predictable framework. Herein lies the fundamental difference: machines can imitate creativity, but they lack that ‘human spark’ that cannot be taught or programmed.

French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, in his work ‘Being and Nothingness,’ offered a different view of creativity, stating that human beings are the only ones capable of creating meaning out of nothing. This view reflects the human capacity to transcend logical and practical limitations, unlike AI, which remains restricted to the rules imposed by programmers. Therefore, human creativity in art and literature is not just a combination of ideas and styles, but a vital process charged with experience and dialogue with the world. 

Today, AI is venturing into even broader fields, such as philosophy and social sciences, attempting to tackle complex human problems. However, there is a real risk in allowing machines to shape our thinking. This raises a critical question: if machines are going to be responsible for proposing solutions to our intellectual and social crises, what will remain of human creativity? Digital ethics researcher Laura Heinz stated in a study that ‘Artificial Intelligence could contribute to the disappearance of intellectual diversity, one of the fundamental pillars of innovation and creativity, due to the trend towards the automation of human thought.’ Based on this reflection, we could say that machines will be able to repeat our ideas, but will be incapable of contributing anything truly new. The only human advantage would be to repeat what machines have already created.

We can no longer deny the presence of Artificial Intelligence as part of our reality. Rather, we must rethink how we use it. If we want to preserve the values of creativity and critical thinking, we must embrace AI as a complementary tool, not a substitute. Bridging the gap between humans and machines requires a deep philosophical conviction that rejects the elimination of human experience and uniqueness in the face of technological advancement. Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan pointed out that ‘the medium is the message.’ In the world of Artificial Intelligence, the real message is how we use these tools to serve humanity and enhance our ability to create, not to eliminate it.

As Artificial Intelligence advances at a dizzying pace, an existential question emerges: will we allow it to expand our horizons, or will we accept that it will displace human creativity? It is clear that technology will continue to be part of our lives, but intellectual and creative faculties must be protected, as they are what make us human, what give depth to a world that would otherwise be just a digital replica of life. 

------------------- 

** In a debate I had with some participants in a cultural forum on WhatsApp, this was my response: 

‘As we witness unprecedented advances in the field of Artificial Intelligence, we must remember that it is human beings who have the ability to create meaning, not machines. If we allow machines to dominate thought and creativity, we will be sacrificing an essential part of our humanity, a part that cannot be recovered in the future.’

Abdelhay Korret, Moroccan journalist and writer