In a world where algorithms compose music, paint portraits, and even write poetry, can we still call ourselves the creative species?

There have been a few articles recently that have offered different views on this debate. In the Harvard Business Review article How Generative AI Can Augment Human Creativity, the authors are mostly optimistic. They say that generative AI is a tool that makes innovation more accessible to everyone and improves what people can do. On the other hand, Kellogg Insight's Will AI Kill Human Creativity? says that while AI can help creators, it might also make all content the same and eventually destroy the originality that makes human expression unique.

As a digital marketing student and someone who experiments with both manual creation and AI tools, I find myself somewhere between these two visions — seeing both their potential and their danger.

HBR sees AI as a way to come up with new ideas, but Kellogg Insight says that users might get too dependent on the technology and start replacing thinking with making. I've personally used tools like ChatGPT to brainstorm ideas, but I always make sure to add my own personal touch to them. The problem comes up when the human step disappears completely. If you don't think critically and reinterpret, the AI becomes more of a creator than a tool.

Both articles agree on one thing: AI is here to stay. But while HBR focuses on opportunity, Kellogg Insight is more cautious. I think the answer's in the balance. If we see AI as a collaborator and not a replacement, we can boost our creativity. But if we give up the creative process altogether, we might end up just consuming ideas made by machines.

So, generative AI won't put the end of human creativity, but it could totally change it in ways we need to be aware of and decide on. As creators, marketers and thinkers, we have a responsibility to use these tools intentionally and to never forget what makes creativity truly human: emotion, imperfection and meaning.