As a person who worked in corporations for over 25 years and who now uses AI to help create music out of lyrics I’ve written, some thoughts on AI usage have popped up for me. Thoughts about where we accept the use of AI and how that relates to whether we think the work is “creative” or not. It seems we tend to accept benchmarking in corporate life without much thought, yet AI use in creative work can be highly scrutinized.

In business, we routinely look outward to improve inward. We study competitors, adopt best practices, and use tools (increasingly AI-powered) to work faster and smarter. People call that strategy. Some companies even insist upon the use of AI. Is that use limited to “non- creative” items? Or does our work often look like something we “did at another company” or “what I did when I worked at ZZZ place”.

In certain arts and crafts, we already accept a similar style of work. People use patterns to sew clothing. They follow recipes to cook. They take classes to make paintings based on someone else’s original work. Structure and inspiration have always coexisted with creativity.

What changes the tone in these conversations about the use of AI inside a corporation or in the arts when the output is labeled “creative”? Is it because creativity feels more personal? More tied to identity than the work within a corporate role? Or is it because we’ve drawn an artificial line between “thinking” work and “making” work?

I’m interested in people’s thoughts on this one because I believe two (or more) things can be true at the same time. Maybe:

AI could accelerate output and still require human judgment.
AI could assist creativity and still leave room for originality in a copyright-safe manner.
AI could be misused and still be used responsibly.

I use AI tools to turn lyrics I wrote into songs. For me, AI doesn’t replace the emotion or the message of the words, but it does expand what I can do with those words. I’m not able to play music. At 50, it would take me years to even try to play one instrument that could bring more life to the lyrics. AI enables that life now.

At the same time, ownership and originality are of utmost importance. People’s work should be respected and they should receive credit when due. That matters. Respecting copyright isn’t optional; it’s foundational.

Maybe there are better questions than “AI vs. creativity” or “AI vs. real work.”

Maybe we ask:

Where is the line between assistance and appropriation?
What role should human intent and input play in defining ownership?
Do we, and if so, why do we accept augmentation in corporate settings, but question it in creative ones?
Are we being consistent in how we think about value across both?

Benchmarking isn’t going away. Tools won’t either. The question is how thoughtfully we choose to use them.

Additional Reading:

• Collective Illusions by Todd Rose
• Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
• The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth
• Barking Up the Wrong Tree: The Surprising Science Behind Why Everything You Know About Success Is (Mostly) Wrong
• Plays Well with Others: The Surprising Science Behind Why Everything You Know About Relationships Is (Mostly) Wrong
• The Art of Possibility: Transforming Professional and Personal Life
• Leaders Eat Last

Amazon Recommendations *Thank you in advance if you use the affiliate links in this article which may result in a small commission.