This week we dive into learning in the intimacy economy as well as the future of personhood with Jamie Boyle. Plus: read about Steve Sloman's upcoming presentation at the Imagining Summit and Helen's Book of the Week.
Explore the shift from the attention economy to the intimacy economy, where AI personalizes learning experiences based on deeper human connections and trust.
A conversation with Jamie Boyle, author of The Line: AI and the Future of Personhood
AI and network analysis reveal innovation's complex structure, manage creative tensions, and amplify human potential by uncovering patterns in invention data. AI guides the process, but human intuition remains crucial in navigating the unequal market of ideas.
Can innovation be computed? Many biologists believe so. Using machines to analyze metabolic pathways, they have uncovered patterns and processes previously hidden due to the limitations of human perception and experimental methods. Machines reveal nature's potential for innovation, a concept that can also be applied to human innovation.
Both nature's and human innovations are highly complex, often involving fruitless paths, dead ends, and setbacks. We constantly strive to make innovation more efficient, systematic, and predictable. However, this desire conflicts with a fundamental aspect of creativity: its wandering, unpredictable, and serendipitous nature.
The tension between exploration and exploitation is a key challenge in innovation. Exploring involves seeking new information, often leading to failure and inefficiency. In contrast, exploiting focuses on maximizing rewards by perfecting processes. Many corporate innovations merely tweak existing products, making small, low-risk improvements.
True innovation—whether it involves inventing, exploring, or breaking paradigms—is much harder and more likely to fail. Is this kind of innovation computable? By applying machine learning and network analysis to creativity, we have new insights into the structure of innovation. Can these insights help us become more innovative ourselves?
Innovations arise from a melting pot of diversity of ideas, perspectives, and experiences which combine across networks of knowledge and people. Tyler Marghetis, Assistant Professor of Cognitive & Information Sciences at the University of California, talks about the concept of "ruts and ruptures” where periods of consistent, routine behavior (ruts) are disrupted by sudden, significant shifts (ruptures`). These transitions are pivotal for allowing new ideas and perspectives which drive innovation processes.
When you think in ruts and ruptures, innovation is clearly not a linear process. AI can help innovators with two related, but separate, challenges: finding the most radical possibilities and then getting them adequately considered. Here's the real rub: not only is innovation non-linear, it also requires a degree of inequality—not in the traditional sense of income inequality but in terms of uneven access to information or unique insights.
Radical ideas are hard to introduce and are not equally distributed. Inequality is vital for radical ideas to emerge. While "ruts and ruptures" describe the nature of innovation processes, they also help us understand the uneven distribution of innovation opportunities within organizations. Ruptures, which introduce new ideas and perspectives, are often driven by individuals who occupy unique positions within innovation networks. These individuals, so often found at the periphery, have access to diverse or unusual knowledge domains and can identify unconventional connections. This unequal distribution of creative potential can lead to tensions within organizations, as those at the center of the network may feel threatened by the disruptive ideas originating from the edges.
Inequality manifests in several ways. At the individual level, it arises from the fact that some people are simply better positioned within a network to have creative breakthroughs than others. These individuals—often described as "peripheral" or "outsider" nodes—occupy a unique structural position that allows them to bridge disparate ideas and domains, and to see the world from a different perspective than those at the center of the network.
An example of the power of peripheral nodes in driving radical ideas is the invention of the transistor at Bell Labs. William Shockley, John Bardeen, and Walter Brattain were the outsider nodes who upended everything. They didn't fit into the typical org chart structure—instead, they occupied unique positions within the Bell Labs innovation network that let them bridge totally different knowledge domains and bring in unconventional perspectives. Shockley was a visionary who predicted how important the transistor would be before anyone else did, Bardeen could go beyond common understanding and explain events no one understood, and Brattain was concerned with the practical stuff like materials science and actually building devices. This combination of skills let them look at the problem of amplifying electrical signals in a totally new way. While everyone else at Bell Labs was heads down on vacuum tubes, these peripheral nodes were able to connect dots that seemed totally unrelated and dreamed up the radical idea of using semiconductor materials for amplification. This breakthrough shook up the vacuum tube monopoly and opened the door for smaller, more efficient, more reliable electronic devices.
But inequality leads to a paradox because it is both necessary for innovation but also problematic. On one hand, the existence of peripheral nodes and unconventional ideas is what drives the engine of creative discovery and breakthrough innovation. Without these sources of novelty and diversity, networks can become stagnant and homogeneous. On the other hand—as anyone who has ever led an internal innovation group or been a corporate VC knows—the concentration of creative opportunities and outcomes within a small subset of individuals or ideas can lead to feelings of exclusion, frustration, and disengagement among those who are not part of the "in-group." It can create a sense of unfairness and inequity that undermines the cohesion and collaboration necessary for sustained innovation. In the case of Shockley, Bardeen, and Brattain, the effect was different—their peripheral perspectives and outsiderness "made them ill fit to continue working together. They joined for a few years of brilliance and then went their separate ways due to a colossal clashing of egos," according to this commentary.
Inequalities within innovation teams act like different pressure zones in the weather, driving information flow and generating friction between ideas, which sparks new insights.
Often, we attribute the discovery of radical possibilities to the lone genius—a visionary who sees what others, entrenched in the status quo, cannot. AI changes this because it can be used as a tool to make progress in understanding radical transformations in human thought. For instance, AI can embed a large corpus of invention into a latent space, allowing others to study idea trajectory and identify patterns of exploration and exploitation. Regularities in breakthroughs can be found across different timescales, from technological innovations spanning decades to individual "Aha!" moments.
Increasingly, machines can give us a window into the nature of creativity and innovation by giving us tools to analyze the structure of an individual's creative journey across their lifetime. This "large scale context" way of examining creativity—detailed in Jonathan Feinstein's excellent book, Creativity in Large Scale Contexts—gives us an insight into the way a network of experiences, education, ideas, challenges, predispositions, and sensibilities can build a kind of "formula" for innovation.
Large-scale networks map both elements and relationships within a context, serving as a foundation for creativity. Elements act as the raw materials for thinking and creating, while relationships facilitate the exploration and generation of new ideas.
A two-step model of creativity can illustrate this process. In the first step, a seed idea is developed by an individual or team. This idea is a starting point, a potential solution or concept that needs further development. In the second step, a critical additional element is added, transforming the seed idea into a core project design. This novel idea is represented as a new connection between two previously unconnected elements in the network.
Guiding conceptions and guiding principles play a pivotal role both in conceptualizing the network of ideas and in selecting a path through the network. Guiding conceptions help identify and define promising directions or topics to explore, generating seed projects. These conceptions are individualistic and highly creative, based on intuition and context. On the other hand, guiding principles help rule out flawed seed projects and discover the right additional elements to develop a seed into a high-potential project. These principles are more likely to be accepted by a larger community within a field, providing a balance between individual creativity and collective validation.
Feinstein describes how golden seeds and golden projects represent the most promising ideas and fully developed high-potential projects. Golden seeds are seed ideas with significant potential, while golden projects are those that have been fully developed and are ready for implementation. This distinction can help innovators focus their efforts on the most promising opportunities.
This may sound abstract, so let's illustrate with an example. Consider the iPhone and Steve Jobs' unique style of innovation. We can identify his core elements: an inertial scrolling screen operated by touch, a phone, and the entire web in your pocket. Jobs' guiding conception was likely grounded in his intuition that the computer is a "bicycle for the mind," driving his vision to make this powerful tool available wherever needed. His guiding principle was simplicity and elegance in design, which he used to unapologetically reject designs that did not fit his sensibilities.
Now imagine this capability deployed across an organization. An AI could characterize innovations across the lifetime of an entire organization and tell you what system of ideas, people, and structure results in the most breakthrough innovations. Such an AI mind would fundamentally alter our intuitions for where ideas come from and how the resulting innovations happened (or didn’t as the case may be). The AI would be able to glean insights into the organization’s true innovation capability and perhaps challenge sacred beliefs of how innovations happen. The AI could characterize the most important ideas, configure the seeds, invite individuals to apply their guiding conceptions, and rigorously govern guiding principles. An AI-guided golden project might be more robust, more connected, and more creative.
Network analysis and AI, combined with human creativity, will drive the next wave of innovation. Feinstein's work demonstrates that human intuition remains crucial in the AI era, acting as an aesthetic measure of "interestingness." This intuition, shaped by a lifetime of experiences, guides the creative process and links components across an individual's or team's network of potential, serving as the scratchpad of creativity.
Guiding principles connect an idea to a broader standard, helping to judge its value within a field. This approach hints at a new structure for innovation: one where machines guide the process, but human intuition remains the ultimate wayfinder.
What does it mean for AI to serve as a "mind for our minds" in innovation? It suggests a symbiotic relationship where AI amplifies and makes our creative potential visible. By revealing the structure of innovation at scale, AI helps manage the inherent tensions in the unequal market of ideas.
The Artificiality Weekend Briefing: About AI, Not Written by AI
