Rebound article responding to:
“Generative AI: The end of creativity or the dawn of a new era?” by Marion Laurent

INTRODUCTION

Extending the debate on AI and creativity

In her article, “Generative AI: The end of creativity or the dawn of a new era?”, Marion Laurent explores an important question: can generative AI support creativity, or does it risk making all content look the same? Based on two contrasting viewpoints from Harvard Business Review and Kellogg Insight, she argues that the answer lies in balance. AI can be useful, as long as humans stay involved in the creative process.

While I agree with her balanced view, I believe the discussion needs to go one step further. The true danger to creativity does not come from AI itself, but from the increasing standardization driven by digital platforms. Algorithms, templates, and performance-driven trends have a stronger impact on how we create than AI tools alone.

SUMMARY OF THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Marion compares two perspectives.
Harvard Business Review presents generative AI as a creative assistant that gives people access to tools they could not use before. According to this view, AI helps anyone produce ideas, visuals, and drafts more easily.

Kellogg Insight, on the other hand, warns that generative AI could reduce originality. If everyone uses models trained on the same data, creativity might become predictable.

Marion positions herself between these two visions: AI can be a powerful collaborator, but only if humans keep control over the final choices and add personal meaning.

This foundation is important, but I believe the bigger issue comes from the environment in which this creativity is produced and shared.

THE REAL ISSUE

Platforms shape creativity more than AI

Today, digital creativity is not shaped by AI alone. It is shaped by the platforms that host, distribute, and reward content. These platforms encourage repetition, speed, and optimization, which leads to uniform creative habits.

TIKTOK

Its algorithm pushes trends, sounds, transitions, and formats that creators follow in order to gain visibility. Creativity becomes a matter of repeating what already works.

INSTAGRAM

Reels follow the same hooks, voice-overs, and editing structures. The content that performs best is often formula-driven, not original.

CANVA

Millions of users work from the same templates, making visual identities similar across industries.

MIDJOURNEY AND OTHER AI TOOLS

These tools often generate images based on what is already popular or frequently requested.

Even when humans want to be original, they face an ecosystem that prioritizes efficiency over exploration. The result is a form of standardization that happens before AI even enters the process.

Creativity becomes shaped by what an algorithm likes, not by what an artist imagines.

AI does not destroy creativity. Incentives do.

Marion highlights the risk of depending too much on AI, but I believe the more significant risk comes from the incentives built into digital platforms. The pressure to create quickly and perform well leads to repetitive content.

These incentives include:

• the need to post frequently to stay visible
• algorithmic reward for familiar formats
• templates that make execution faster but less unique
• the pressure to “follow trends” to increase reach

Because of these factors, creators may start optimizing for the algorithm instead of expressing their own ideas. Generative AI fits naturally into this environment because it produces fast and clean outputs. However, the lack of originality comes more from the system than from the tool.

WHERE I AGREE WITH MARION

Human intention still matters most

Marion insists that humans must remain central to the creative process. I fully agree. The value of creativity does not come from the tool, but from the perspective behind it.

What makes creativity human is:

• emotion
• imperfection
• cultural background
• personal history
• meaning
• interpretation

AI can imitate styles and patterns, but it cannot reproduce the personal experience of a creator. The more AI develops, the more human elements become valuable. Creativity is moving from technical execution to emotional expression.

A COMPLEMENTARY PERSPECTIVE

AI will not kill creativity, but it will challenge passive creativity

While Marion emphasizes the risk that AI might replace thinking, I believe AI will mainly replace low-effort creativity. If a caption, a visual, or a short-form video can be generated instantly, it means it was already generic.

This is not a threat. It is a filter.

AI forces creators to bring deeper value. Originality now depends on personality, storytelling, authenticity, and ideas that cannot be automated. In this sense, AI elevates the importance of human intention.

CONSLUSION

The future of creativity depends on choices, not on tools

Marion’s article raises essential questions about the future of creativity. However, I believe the conversation must also include the role of digital platforms in shaping our creative habits. Generative AI is not inherently dangerous, but a system that rewards repetition can be.

The solution is not to reject AI, but to use it with intention. As marketers, creators, and digital professionals, our role is to bring what AI cannot generate: emotion, culture, and personal meaning. AI will not eliminate human creativity. It will transform it, and perhaps push us to be more creative than before.