NEW CEO EPISODE OUT NOW:
Upwards of billions of dollars are being spent year after year by mega-corporations and conglomerates to bolster their machine-learning infrastructure.
Companies are looking to guarantee their professional and profitable futures, and A.I seems like a surefire way of doing so.
With so much talk surrounding the topic, and yet the territory being nebulous, questions of its proper use and ethicacy begin to arise.
Questions specifically impacting and surrounding the future of the creative class (artists, authors, and other forms of creators), such as “Where do we stop and differentiate between creativity and productivity?”
Or, “Do artificially generated works that rival the beauty and value of works by artists and creatives compare in their worth and importance?”
Simply put, does the work of robots hold the same gravitas as that of humans? Globally, creatives are wondering if they have a future.
Well … yes and no.
I sat down with Daniel Tweedall, CEO and founder of Tweeds, a personal publishing platform for the next generation of humanity in AI, to discuss this and make some headway in the subject.
Here are a few of my takeaways and thoughts from the interview. (Full Episode can be found on the DC Youtube Channel)

Robotics and technology are inherently unmoral, meaning they have no relation or conception of value-based and driven ethics.
Not to say that technology is an immoral practice, but the fact is that machinery has no soul and therefore its use cannot be measured by the same value-based ethic systems religion, philosophers, and culture have all had a say in developing.
Before this decade, that didn't matter as they were tools in the hand of a blacksmith, mere means to ends, and consequently, their effects were judged and held in line by the intentions and directives of their user.
But as machine learning takes over and thinks for itself, who decides where the line is drawn and when it should or shouldn't be crossed?
Tweedall wrestles with this as he pioneers a company aimed at integrating Artificial Intelligence benefits while mitigating its effects on the creative class.
He firmly believes that when it comes down to it, what matters most is the humanity of all of it, something that I can't help but agree with as ‘human' is my favorite word within the modern English language.
In discussing this with him, my insights developed as he drew parallels between his areas of expertise, “markets and monkeys,” the study of business and man, and a primordial fact: Humans are storytellers.
Sure, firms aim to make money, and yes, profit is important, but Tweedall argues that it's impossible to completely set apart the craving for genuine human touch. The small imperfections, stutters, and inconsistencies that make our art, stories, and creations what they are: beautiful.
That being said, Tweedall adds a significant caveat: AI does have a place within society, just not at the expense of humanity.
This translates to the need for a line to be drawn in the sand, one that can be erased, re-drawn, and moved about as years pass and the technology is given the time needed to adapt properly.
That line is set in place by society and interweaving interactions; the push and pull between classes will create boundaries and exceptions, but the most balanced of them will not occur naturally if we do not actively pay attention and have a say in the matter.
This echoes a sentiment communicated by Emily Dickinson, a leading 19th Century American poet who wrote, “ The freight should be proportioned to the groove”. In the context of the work, it means an emotion can only be delivered in context to how much the person receiving it can value and measure it.
Applying that truth here, the simple reality is that Artificial Intelligence can only have as much of an effect on society as society allows it to.
So, what does that line look like? Great question. Entrepreneurs and forward-thinking individuals like Tweedall are debating it themselves. But it's an ongoing conversation in need of a resolution.
A past societal revolution worth looking into for insight into how to approach this one is the introduction of the calculator into school systems in the mid-1970s.
At what point is their use cheating, and is employing them for basic arithmetic a devaluing activity for humans? Or are the upsides and facilitation of complex equations and calculus better and, therefore, sufficiently valid reasons for their use?
This question has recently become personal as a writer and author asking himself whether the time invested to output articles and novels is worth it when consumers might shrug it off and instead fill their needs with media and content from Siri’s and Alexa’s.
While the lines surrounding A.I are being drawn and moved around constantly; I personally believe and uphold that its use as a calculator or tool, and not as an end itself, may better us and further our human capacity for creativity.
For now, those are my thoughts.
(I deeply thank Daniel Tweedall for his insights and the wonderful conversation.)
Check out our full-length discussion here: DC | Tweeds
- Making The Most Of Being Curious
Daniel J. Cuesta
If you want to learn more about Daniel Tweedall's work as well as Tweeds, check out the links below:
Comments