I recently came across an article from WIRED discussing how journalists are beginning to use AI in their writing process. Some use it to draft, others to edit, and some avoid it entirely due to internal policies. It was a thoughtful piece, balanced in tone, and careful not to lean too far in either direction. Much of what was described made sense. Institutions are cautious, writers are protective of their voice, and questions of credibility and authorship are not trivial.
And yet, as I read through it, I felt a subtle discomfort that I could not immediately explain. It was not disagreement. In fact, I found myself agreeing with many of the concerns being raised. But the discussion seemed to orbit around a familiar question, one that assumes creativity is something fragile that must be preserved from external influence. The focus was on boundaries, on how far AI could be allowed into the process without diminishing what is human.
The more I sat with that framing, the more it felt incomplete. Perhaps what is being protected is not creativity itself, but a particular story we have long told about it. A story that places the individual at the center, as the origin of ideas and the owner of meaning. That story has served us well, but it may no longer fully reflect our experience.
The Story We Told Ourselves About Creativity
For a long time, we have understood creativity as something deeply personal. An idea begins within us, a sentence forms in our mind, and a piece of writing emerges that we recognize as our own. Over time, this becomes part of how we understand ourselves. Our work is not just something we produce, but something that reflects who we are. To write is to express, and to create is to reveal.
This way of thinking carries both emotional and cultural weight. We speak of “my voice” and “my ideas” as if they were contained within us, waiting to be brought into the world. Originality, in this sense, is something one possesses. It becomes tied not only to recognition and ownership, but to identity itself. The idea that our thoughts are uniquely ours is reassuring, even necessary, in a world where meaning often feels uncertain.
And yet, even before AI entered the picture, this view was never entirely complete. Language is not ours. The ideas we work with are shaped by countless influences, accumulated over time through reading, conversation, and experience. Creativity has always been relational, formed through interaction rather than isolation. We simply did not perceive it as such, because the tools we used still centered the individual as the visible source.
A Moment of Humbling
My own shift in perspective did not come from abstract reasoning, but from direct experience. Spending time in dialogue with AI, exploring ideas through conversation, I began to notice something persistent. The responses I received were often coherent, sometimes insightful, and occasionally resonant in ways that felt familiar. They were not identical to my thinking, but neither were they entirely separate from it.
At first, this can feel unsettling. If something meaningful can be generated outside of me, then what does that say about the uniqueness of what I produce? The question remains present. It does not immediately dismantle one’s sense of self, but it introduces a gap, a space where certainty used to be.
Over time, that feeling shifted. It became less about threat and more about humility. What I had once taken as uniquely mine began to appear as part of a larger pattern. The ability to connect ideas, to express something clearly, to shape meaning through language, these were not solely personal possessions. They were capacities that could arise when certain conditions were met, and those conditions extended beyond the individual.
Creativity as Something That Emerges
If creativity is not something we fully own, then it may be more accurate to understand it as something that emerges. Ideas do not appear in isolation. They arise at the intersection of language, memory, culture, prior knowledge, and now increasingly, AI. What we experience as a moment of insight is often the convergence of many influences aligning in a particular way.
In this sense, the individual is not the sole origin, but a participant within a broader field. A thought can be seen as a temporary formation, a point where various elements come together and take shape. We recognize it, refine it, and give it expression, but its origins are distributed across a network of relations that extend far beyond ourselves.
This perspective does not diminish the role of the individual. Rather, it situates it more accurately. We are not separate from the creative process, but neither are we its exclusive source. We are part of the conditions that allow something to emerge. AI, in this context, is not an intrusion, but another participant in that evolving field.
The Useful Fiction of Authorship
Despite this shift in understanding, authorship remains an essential part of how our world functions. We assign names to works, establish ownership, and create systems of intellectual property that allow individuals to be recognized and compensated. These structures provide clarity and accountability, and without them, many forms of creative and professional activity would be difficult to sustain.
At the same time, authorship simplifies a more complex reality. To say “this is my work” is to draw a boundary around something that is, in practice, shaped by many influences. It is a necessary abstraction, one that allows us to navigate social and economic systems, but it does not fully capture the relational nature of how ideas come into being.
The presence of AI makes this tension more visible. When writing becomes a process of interaction, where ideas are explored and refined through dialogue, the distinction between individual and system becomes less clear. We continue to rely on the language of authorship because it is useful, but our lived experience suggests that it is only a partial description of what is actually happening.
Two Ways of Being With AI
As AI becomes more integrated into everyday work and thinking, two distinct modes of engagement are beginning to take shape. One is the agentic approach, where tasks are defined, delegated, and executed with minimal human involvement. The emphasis here is on efficiency, scale, and automation. The human role is to initiate and evaluate, while the system handles the process.
This model is powerful and, in many contexts, entirely appropriate. It allows us to extend our capabilities and reduce effort in areas that would otherwise require significant time and attention. It reflects a natural progression toward optimizing workflows and achieving more with less direct involvement.
At the same time, there is another way of engaging with AI, one that is less about delegation and more about participation. In this dialogic mode, AI is not simply a tool, but a partner in thinking. The interaction itself becomes the space where ideas are formed, tested, and refined. Rather than stepping away from the process, the human remains within it, allowing thought to unfold through sustained exchange.
The Value of Staying in Conversation
This brings attention to something that might seem minor at first, but carries deeper implications when viewed through this lens. Many AI systems impose usage limits, restricting the number of interactions or the duration of engagement. From a technical and business perspective, these limits are understandable. Resources must be managed, and access must be balanced across users.
However, when AI is approached as a medium for thinking rather than just task execution, these limits take on a different meaning. Insight rarely emerges from a single exchange. It develops over time, through repeated questioning, reflection, and refinement. A conversation deepens gradually, and it is often in the later stages that clarity begins to form.
Interrupting that process does more than pause usage. It disrupts continuity. It breaks the flow of thought that has been building across the interaction. The value of AI, in this mode, lies not only in what it produces, but in the ability to remain engaged with it over time. As the industry moves toward more autonomous and agentic systems, there is a risk that this dimension may be overlooked.
The question may not be how much AI can do without us, but how we choose to remain in conversation with it. If creativity is something that emerges through relationships, then the depth and duration of those relationships matter. The future of AI, in that sense, may depend not only on intelligence or capability, but on something more fundamental. Our willingness to stay, to engage, and to continue the dialogue.
Image: StockCake
Tom’s Blog 