top of page

The Future of Creative Work: AI, Ownership, and the “Human Layer”

Jan 915 min read

Updated: 22 hours ago

A humanoid robot, wearing a black outfit with a black wig in a bob haircut style is standing in front of 2 massive (taller than 6ft) painting canvases on either side of her.
Source: Sotheby's/EPA via The Guardian

We examine how generative AI is transforming creative work and expression. Our conversation weaves through three distinct signals: a $1.8 million AI-created portrait, Gen Z's creative approach to job hunting, and New York's guaranteed income program for artists. We discuss how the creative economy might transform into an ownership economy, where value lies in both the original human creation and its AI-augmented iterations. These signals point to possible shifts in how creative work is valued, protected, discovered, and supported in society.





Selected Links:




Episode Transcript:

Lana: Welcome to Signal Shift, by Horizon Shift Lab. We're your hosts, Lana Price, Raakhee Natha, and Sue Chi. Each episode, we explore the latest signals in technology, culture, and society, uncovering insights that will impact our daily lives in the future. Join us as we shift perspectives, explore possibilities, and delve into real changes in our world. Curious to learn more? Go to horizonshiftlab.com.


[0:36] 


Lana: Hello, and welcome to another episode of Signal Shift. This is Lana. And today's episode is about the future of work, specifically the future of creative work. 


So when we say creative work, we mean output that involves imagination, skill, and innovation to produce something new. And so this can include art, writing, music, design, dance, other forms of expression.


So according to the World Economic Forum Future of Jobs Survey from last year, employers anticipate a complete structural labor market churn of 23% of jobs in the next five years. And this is a mix of new jobs added, like whole new jobs that didn't exist before, and then a whole spectrum of jobs disappearing. Both of those will even out to this churn, with higher than average churn in some specific industries that includes media and entertainment, sports, and others.


So we're already seeing this, right? We're already seeing big news of layoffs, corporate layoffs across these and other sectors. Many creative workers are also freelancers. So whether they're counted in these layoff numbers or not, we can see evidence of that, like in our LinkedIn feeds, people being very transparent about being let go or having a reduction in their work and being “open to work” in their profiles. And so our conversation today is really going to focus specifically on the future of work and creative fields. And so curious to hear what signals you found.


[2:30]


Raakhee: Raakhee here, I'll jump in first today. I'm sure you both saw this headline. It was about art created by a humanoid robot artist. Her name is Ai-da, like AI-da, Ai-da. And she made a portrait of English mathematician Alan Turing. It's about 2.2 meters in height, and it's called "A.I. God”. And it's sold at auction for $1.8 million. 


Yeah, and I would never have thought that something created by an AI humanoid robot would get sold for that much. Because in my head, I'm like, oh, well, that's so replicable. What is creativity? What? It's supposed to be originals. You know what I mean? It's original work, right?


So I was really surprised by that. And I guess these are some of the thoughts that I came out with, and it got me really thinking about what value to be placed on what within the creative realm. 

And I guess the insights that came out for me, and this links to, of course, what will happen with creative work and creative jobs. But the insights that came out for me were, one, is that, yes, AI is generative, but it's from data, right? So eventually, the humanoid robots, once there's the second and the third and the fourth, that price drops dramatically, right? What we love as humans is when something is the first, when something is different, we place value on that, right? And what we place value on doesn't change.


So sure, this first one is going to go for something, because it holds a place in history. But then it'll shift really dramatically, I think. 


And I think the insight that I had was, because of that, because AI has to create from what we create, AI creates from data. There still has to be a first layer. And I see that first layer as human, and then second is kind of the AI layer. 


And I don't know, but I suspect maybe something like this will happen is that, when we do create things, art, or whatever we do, our original work, there'll be this layer where we protect it very strongly. We have limited exposure to it. We make sure it doesn't go online. And I think that kind of human work will also sell for more. We'll place a lot of value on it.


I think secondary, everything, though, will get onto the machine. It'll be a second layer, and then it becomes something else. And so I was like, hmm, I see one of the things happening is these like two worlds, like the offline world. So that first layer of creation, and I think that'll be highly valued. 

And then even that goes into the second layer, and it's kind of gone then, right? And then that second world of almost mass production. 


I think having said that, there'll also be, always be a group of people who will always value the human process more. We even see today, artisan work, that sort of thing, right? You pay more for that than the people who can afford it, and who truly do value it, will pay more for that. And I think that thread will also exist.


At the same time, to be realistic, that if there's somebody who's got an Etsy gig, and they're making these standard artwork cards, I think AI is going to come in and swoop that. It just, because it'll be way cheaper, or it'll be free, quite frankly, for people to have something creative and beautiful created by AI. 


So I think we'll see these threads, these different worlds, and how they'll work. Yeah, and so it just got me thinking about value and creative jobs. 


And I think I spoke about this in a previous episode, right? About DJing, and how DJing would become ultimately redundant, right? But you'd have one or two celebrity DJs who would still exist. And I think it's kind of in a similar vein.


And the ultimate thread that I want to, I guess, throw out then, put there when it comes to creative work and jobs is, we talk about the creator economy right now. But if all of this shift is going to happen, and it's really about, like I said, protecting that first layer, and it's about who created it. 

Do you think, this is my question, almost the future what it's about is the ownership economy. Whether you own the AI tool that has created this art, whether you own your very original work, and people have limited access to it, it's about owning, right? 


Like creating is something we all can do in different ways, and AI is going to change that relationship, but there's something around ownership. And that's what spurred for me. So from Ai-da to questioning about what sort of economy are we moving to, and I'll leave you at that.


Lana: Oh, love all the stuff that you've brought up, Raakhee. I definitely have some comments, and there are some really interesting threads to follow here. Before I do that, Sue, curious to hear what you think and what you have for this week. 


Sue: Really interesting signal. I mean, I haven't been on Etsy in a while, I even wonder what their AI policy is right now for some of their creators, and how they might be interpreting that in the future.


[7:50]


Sue: My signal, it takes the creative field very broadly, and I was wondering what it means for different age groups for future jobs. And I found two juxtaposing signals about where we're going, right? 


So on one hand, there's Gen Z, and they're really taking creativity to a whole other level. I mean, what they want are creative jobs. It's like surpassing tech or anything like that. They want to go into media and entertainment. They want to be part of the creator economy. 


I found that that translates to even how they get jobs. They're not really doing traditional CVs and resumes, or to the extent that that's not being received well or as much as they'd like. They're increasingly taking their advice and actually getting jobs through TikTok. And there was a survey from resumebuilder.com that said that 80% of Gen Z that they surveyed used the app to actually network. 41% said they made a career decision based on advice they got from TikTok. And 15% actually accepted a job that they found through the app.


So you also have companies on the other hand who are now trying to be more creative and granted these are more creative fields, but they're posting roles there and actually asking people to post video resumes now that showcase who they are. 


But at the same time, we're now thinking about older generations, right? And so Indeed posted a LinkedIn post that was very controversial. I don't know if you saw this, but they basically showed your career evolution by the decade of age you were in. And by the time you hit 55 and above, they said you are “in decline.” And so of course, like they had to apologize. People were just so upset. Of course, we've talked about this a lot on who makes up this rule anyway, right? This is absolutely not where we're going with the future of work.


But they talked about older people having struggles, finding jobs because they might have antiquated language on their resume. They might have prolonged work gaps for whatever reason. And so the AI algorithm isn't letting them past whatever review stage that they had. 


So I wondered, could we all actually take a page out of Gen Z's playbook when it comes to very creative solutions to finding jobs in the future? And is there a way for us to adapt some of that to showcase your whole portfolio of skills of what's available to you? 


And so I thought, this could make a lot of sense, especially if you're thinking creative fields, these are not linear careers. And especially with all this disruption, we're gonna find more people who have these kinds of backgrounds. And so instead of offering maybe just one snapshot or making it very difficult to describe in a traditional CV, if you're talking about all this churn, are there other ways to offer a new view of the work and what you can bring? 


And so a lot of this is applying to the creative fields, but you can imagine just traditional companies are gonna have to get a lot more creative on how they're recruiting for the future at all age ranges. So that was my signal for the week.


Lana: Yeah, that really aligns with, one of the other things I was gonna mention in the open was in terms of what that World Economic Forum Future of Jobs survey found was that even though the nature of jobs and the work will look different in terms of skills, like the top skills that industries are still looking for are one, analytical thinking, and two, creative thinking, right? 


And so I think that's exactly to your point, which is like in a rapidly changing world and workplace, we have to be able to solve complex problems and adapt. And we gotta be able to like do things differently. And so yeah, I think really taking away that example of applying those skills to say like, okay, what's a different way to apply for jobs or like network or search? And so I think that's a really, really good point.


[12:17]


Lana: Let's see, so mine is a little different angle and so I'm curious to see how these come together. So my signal is about guaranteed income for artists. And so that's specifically a program in New York City, which is called Creatives Rebuild New York. Next month will be the last month of this 18 month project. And so it's a program that provided guaranteed income to 2,400 artists in New York State. They gave $1,000 a month for 18 months, no strings attached. So this project is winding down. They don't have their final results, but they did just release some preliminary findings.


So just to like state obvious things, like $12,000 a year is not a livable wage, right? So they didn't like pay these artists to exist, there is supplementary income. And what they found even before they started the program is that even though artists and creative workers are core to our culture and to our economy, they get a really like short shrift. Like the artists that they surveyed earn significantly less than the average New Yorker. They don't have a financial safety net and almost half of the respondents are gig workers. So that means that they don't have access to employer-related health insurance. They don't have access to unemployment insurance.


In terms of how guaranteed income impacts artists' lives, at least their preliminary results show that when they receive this kind of guaranteed stipend per month, they can pay down their debt, right? They can pay their bills. They also have more freedom to work on their practice and more time for caregiving responsibilities. And as we had talked before, when we were talking about caregiving, you know that's often something that's unpaid work that folks are doing that they're not being recognized for.


I mean, guaranteed income programs are very polarizing as a topic. The critics feel that guaranteed income programs might disincentivize work, right? It's a kind of a fear that if people get paid, they'll be paid to do nothing and they won't work and won't contribute to our economy. 

But, you know, in terms of what this preliminary report found is that they not only work, but they're really doing it in a way that's meaningful and shaping their community. And so there are a number of these types of programs. There's another one in Minnesota called Springboard, which just expanded to add five more years and more rural artists. 


You know, I think there's something here about, you know, as we do this like churn, like this big change, would these types of programs help, you know, maybe even in the transition, right? From one space to another, is this part of the social contract that we have with creative workers that, you know, it's not a given that they'll be able to seamlessly go from one world kind of to the next. And so I think this is an interesting thing to keep an eye out on. And so that's sort of my signal that I'm contributing to this topic.


[16:00]


Lana: But yeah, so we've talked about a lot of really, taking some different approaches here on the creator economy and the ownership economy and some different creative solutions. So curious to hear what you guys are thinking about right now.


Raakhee: Yeah, so many valid, interesting threads there, right? I think we have to do an episode on the “resume is dead,” what now, right? Sue, like, it's a whole topic on its own. It's so fascinating, right? But I think it truly is. 


And then Lana, I think about everything you spoke about with guaranteed income. And yes, that being such a big debate, right? And two sides having different opinions around this.


When we think about creativity and we think about jobs, it's almost that there's a separation. In a sense that we will always be creative. We create, we can create. That's the one thing humans will do, whether we make music, right? Whether you're the laziest person or the most disciplined, we create. That's, it's core to us. That's always existed. It's the entangling in how do we earn money to live our lives? And so some people were like, okay, I'll use my creativity, right? Others were like, I'll just use my analytical thinking, whatever. And it's like, do we separate those things, right? 

Coming to the whole concept of guaranteed income, kind of, yeah, I think across, like separate it and let people do as they need to in the world. But yeah, these are such big ideas, right? It speaks to how do we live? So yeah, a big one. 


But I think that speaks to the heart of this when we talk about creative work is making money being a separate thing and saying that, hey, we are always creative whether AI exist or not, we will continue to be creative. How does it operate in the world of economics? I don't know.


Lana: Yeah, I think going back to, I think one of the points, Raakhee, that you were making about AI, generative AI being its derivative, right? It's inherently limited because the data is from before. It's backward in time. And then if I think, I think what I understand for what you're saying, it's also like, then we're extrapolating that further, right? Like a couple of different degrees, but it's not outward and it's not forward. 


You know, I think that first layer that you're talking about the human experience, that's really from this moment in time, right? This human experience that we're having now, observing it, processing it, you know, making something brand new from that experience. that has to be protected. Otherwise, we're just having like rehash of old stuff in new forms.


And so, yeah, and I thought that the ownership economy point was a really interesting one, you know, that's where we're seeing so much activity now around copyright and how even the act of making work does follow the footprints of work that has been made before. It is in conversation with artists who have come before us, a lot of nuance around copyright and ownership. 


And yeah, I think it's bringing up a lot of questions. And I guess what I'm hearing is that there is a part of the creative process that we believe is only humans can do. And so, how do we ensure that we still foster that and carry that forward?


[19:50]


Sue: It's so hard to think about how this can happen. If, you know, so much of the language learning model is based on what exists out there in technology, like are artists gonna move to a place where there's no tech allowed? There's a fleeting moment of artistry and you have to be there to capture it. And then it's gone. And only the people there will have that moment in their head to be able to evolve it to the next thing.


Right, so now you might be getting things that will just, yeah, they'll just disappear and you'll have to be there for that moment in time. I don't know, it's just an interesting concept to say, like, we don't want AI to be part of this. We want this just in this circle. You know, will that have value? I have no idea.


Raakhee: Totally, and that's exactly what I was thinking with the first layers, Sue, imagine, you know, Lana does this amazing art piece. We're in her network, other people, she invites us. We go down, she has an amazing showcase, no phones, nothing. We see it, we all pay a hefty amount because we love her and we love her work. Anybody supports her and it's a big thing. But then to protect that and to continue to own that, that's it, mum, you know what I'm saying?

Everybody's respected, it's shut down. When she wants to, because she owns that, she can put it onto AI and create the second layer. But that's up to her, right, when she wants to.


And I think people will pay a premium for those experiences. And then I imagine the one person who can maybe take a video or photo, that can be a second piece of, like, that video can sell. And that can be, you know, I can imagine things like that happening.


Lana: That's really, really interesting idea. So this idea that it may be that it's more ephemeral because we want to protect it and thus maybe a fear that if it goes online, it'll get swooped up, right? And sort of swept into the bin of processing. And of course, there's something really lost in that too, right? Then it can't just be for the audience, these really small audiences, because how are we then conversating with each other in a bigger way if we're trying to avoid being online. It’s a super interesting thought exercise.


I actually did take all my artwork off my website because I didn't know how to have it be up. Like, I was like, the benefit of it being up versus the risk, I didn't know how to like think about that. So I was like, well, just for now, I'm gonna take it all down. So I think what you're saying is very... A question that people are really grappling with, you know, about what does it mean to have something that you really want to say, yet maybe don't want to have someone, another, have it take its life in a different form that is not saying what you want to say. So it's a very, very good point.


Okay, so any takeaways here on what we're left with as we think about the future of work and specifically creative work? 


Raakhee: There's so much, you know, we surfaced here, they all almost warrant their own discussions, right? From the resume is dead, to this ownership economy, how that'll work, there's the two layers, right? The human layer, the protection of that. And Lana, the points you just made about AI as well, is not at all to say that it shouldn't even go on there. It should, that'll just be that second layer we talk about, you know, because the truth is then, a lot is out of your control. But like we see ad revenue for YouTube and things like that, I hope we get to a point where when you're ready to enter the second layer with your artwork, that you do get the revenue, right? The ad revenue that should exist from putting it onto AI or something like that. I don't know how that's gonna work out.


But yeah, I think these are all the big questions that are raised out of today, but I can definitely see more possibilities of how things can work and how we can shape them, how we as people have a chance to now shape what that future is gonna look like.


Lana: Yeah, thank you, Raakhee. Yeah, and I think, you know, going to a statement you made earlier, it's just what value do we place on the creative realm? 


So thank you both so much for this really engaging conversation. Thanks to everyone who joined us. And we look forward to being with you again soon.


[24:30]

Tags:

Comments

bottom of page