Why Natural Intelligence Makes AI look like Artificial Incompetence

In “The Creative Dilemma,” clinical psychologist and senior marketer Santiago Durán* explains why human creativity remains superior to generative AI. He argues that while AI is efficient, it lacks the personal, serendipitous, and slow-thought processes essential for true originality.

The Creative Dilemma: Natural Intelligence vs. Artificial Incompetence

By Santiago Duran*

Human creativity is being massacred by Generative AI and we are not just letting it happen, we are on our knees, begging the deep fake daddy to feed us more NFTs.

Sorry for the rough start. Creativity for me is a particularly important subject and touches some personal and professional areas of my experience.

Allow me to explain to you why.

I’m a psychologist who ended up finding its initial professional calling in the advertising world. Advertising is a business founded in the necessity of human-insights-inspired creativity to solve brand and marketing challenges. The pinnacle of the Advertising Craft is the conscious and directional creation of communication ideas. That’s why in an advertising agency you will find people called “Art”, “Creative”, “Copywriter”, “Producer”.

Later on, in my career as an agency planner, I witnessed that only a deep understanding of these undeniable truths about the consumer (insights), paired with a rigorous process of ideation and message creation, was the key foundation for successful brand marketing communications.

Creativity is both an installed human capability that supports societal and personal evolution and at the same time, human creativity is the means to harness communication as the most powerful business growth tool we have.

So what happens, when all of a sudden, a widespread technology comes and occupies the seat of the “generation” of concepts, solutions, sequenced sounds, language models, and graphic expressions? What happens when the act, and exercise of creation can exist with a diminished participation of humans?

I must confess that I’m an actual fan, and perhaps even an obsessive user, of Artificial Intelligence. I believe that is the most potent, magical, and revolutionary tool that humans have created. I can’t imagine my day-to-day life without it, either for personal or professional purposes. At the same time (and I might have a privileged perspective due to my professional experience), It’s impossible for me not to notice the evident impact it is having on several key human expected tasks and behaviors. No matter what everybody says, AI replaces a myriad of productivity solutions that “5 minutes ago” were almost exclusively humanly dependent. And it does an amazing job. And it is allowing us to scale our efficiency, our productivity and our impact reach.

But when AI is used to solve problems that before were covered by human creativity, I can also confirm how that creative process is now a very different version of what it was before. In other words, AI-generated creativity, AI based ideation, AI sourced messaging and content creation, follows a set of rules that lacks something that is impossible to algorithmically produce or computationally create. And those elements that are not present by design in an AI generative process are in a close relationship with the transformational impact (magical effect) that direct human creativity has.,

To explain what I mean, I will focus on 3 fundamental human capacities that, wither, disappear or are impossible to re-produce when AI is in command of the creation.

I. Free Association of Ideas vs Recombination + Prediction + Evaluation

When Freud wrote about free association, he did it in the context of his book “The Interpretation of Dreams” 1899. (Published 1900): Freud famously called dreams “the royal road to a knowledge of the unconscious activities of the mind.” He applied the method of free association to dream elements, asking patients to follow each part of their dream with whatever ideas came to them spontaneously, without censorship. And even when this could be found hard for anyone or any patient, he laid his trust in a now undeniable principle: Psychic Determinism—the idea that no thought, no matter how random or trivial it seems, is ever accidental. Every mental event is caused by conscious or unconscious intentions. Therefore, the chain of thoughts produced during free association is not random. It is determined by unconscious motivations and follows a logical (though hidden) path. The apparent random ideas elicited through free association are bound by, and destined to bring forward memories, concepts, mental links that reveal never-before-seen stuff, and as such, very valuable to unearth the unconscious mind. (In contrast, an AI version of an unconscious mind would be something like crochet poppets and party plates found on your aunt’s Pinterest boards and Reddit rants).

Any human resolving a creative problem will inevitably be able to tap into this excellent organic capacity and, thanks to it, come up with very intimate, culturally infused, human, eureka moments of creation.

The abysmal difference from this path of creation and the AI process lies in the absence of personal or nuanced cultural contextualization.

No matter how the generative set-up is designed, or how precise the prompts are designed, at the end the AI chance of success in its response is confined to a weighted selection that inevitably has elements of mathematical calculation, top relevance estimation, and in the great majority of cases, a set of filters and barriers that are not subtly established but need to cover ample moral, political and commercial pre-established blanket principles.

The famous recombination, prediction, and evaluation AI cycle, as clean and precise as it is, will always lack the capacity to imitate our unique, personally influenced, hodgepodge of a history. It’s important to note that free association is not random nor modulated by any ample average human collected history. It’s unique, deeply connected to a personal experience of the world and a true path to profound human insights.

II. Slow Thought VS Immediate Solution

Some contemporary psychologists coincide with the notion of a significant difference in creativity results and problem-solving capacity between those humans who allow themselves time to reflect and those who rush decisions.

I love how Dr. Daniel Kahneman in one of my favorite books ”Thinking Fast and Slow” explains it: Our minds are governed by two distinct systems: System 1, which is fast, intuitive, and emotional, and System 2, which is slow, deliberate, and logical. In other words, System 1 sees a cute puppy and immediately decides to adopt it, no questions asked, while System 2 is still calculating the lifetime cost of dog food, vet bills, and the inevitable destruction of your favorite pair of shoes. But even though we have the 2 systems installed the main factor of our capacity of using that analytically sound System 2, is TIME. Delaying our first move instinct, demands control which in delay plays the protagonist.

In a related line of thought, Dr. Adam Grant, (Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania) explains how procrastination, and strategic delay of actions and decisions, is the main factor in the attainment of Originality, and Divergent Ideas. Clearly, “down time” alone or the arbitrary delay of a decision / solution for a problem, does not solely result in a better or more innovative solution. Nevertheless, the key common factor needed in all human cases of divergent ideas, complex problem breakthroughs or masterful creations, is time!

Delivering original, transformational, and/or truly innovative ideas is heavily dependent on time. Arguably, the pressures of the contemporary economy, the pace of business advancements and the hyper short life span of contemporary creative content, demands a different approach to creation, different than slow-timed. The trade-off of geniality impact for immediately relevant, could be valid when the reality of our markets and economies are faced objectively. Fast, average generation, beats slow stellar creation.

But beware; the trade-off is real! Eg. We have been living in one of the most prolific decades of music creation and consumption, and at the same time we have been living in one of the least remarkable decades regarding transformational musical trends. There is no time any more to “cook” the next ‘New Wave Sound’, ‘Punk Beat’, ‘break through genre’. Many truly defining moments of human history triggered by creativity, took decades or more. Here is an example: for the last 35 years we have been evaluating cinema success by the box office of their first 72 hours of life. And even worse, the majority of movie creators have traded original expressions for “success”, due to the “timed-bound commercial pressure” their craft lives under. Popular creations are no longer the “best creations”, but definitely, quick engaging, repetitive creations, are the common denominator of the majority of the biggest contemporary “artistic hits”.

Clearly in this scenario, where our transformative creative spirit has little to no temporal space to bloom, AI presents itself as the best “stay-alive” solution, in an ever-demanding, fast paced, snackable-content-consuming world. One last thing, if you are comfortable with this state of things, just don’t ask for the next “Star Wars” to arrive any time soon. Today, no one has 7 to 10 years to wait while a “George-Lukas-Like Genius Creator” builds a human defining cinematic story. Just wait, sooner than you think, the only thing you will have to do to enjoy “the art of cinema”, will be to feed a prompt of the movie you want to see into Netflix, and AI will create it instantly; almost as fast as it will be forgotten afterwards.

III. Incoherence and “Happy Accidents” VS Algorithmic Precision

Quick question: Have you ever heard of a little travel book series called “Lonely Planet”?, or even better: Do you own a Microwave Oven at home? Well, let me tell you a couple stories of successful creation, at the hands of imperfect humans.

The book responsible for the existence of a worldwide practice of backpacking, has an amazing creation story. What began in the 1970s as a modest, self-published travel guide grew into what we know today as Lonely Planet, the most influential travel publisher in the world, selling over 145 million books in 14 languages and covering nearly every destination on earth. From a small, homemade booklet, it became a global institution that shaped the way generations explored the world.

Originally called “Across Asia on the Cheap”, the first edition of the travel guide gained immense attention and inspired the young Australian creators Tony and Maureen Wheeler to continue writing their stories and tips on other travels. Naturally faced with the necessity of a generic name for the, now, series of travel books, Tony took a line from the Joe Cocker song “Space Captain” that he believed was amazing: The lyric goes, “Once while traveling across the sky, this lovely planet caught my eye.” but Tony mistakenly heard “Lonely Planet”. He thought it was perfect as it poetically reflected the travel style he enjoyed with his wife, backpacking frugally to remote, amazing destinations. Yes, the brand of the most successful, globally beloved, widely distributed, style-foundational, and successful travel book in the history of the world is the result of a human mistake. (BTW: AI doesn’t mishear lyrics. It just plagiarizes them correctly, and somehow that’s supposed to be progress.

Now something even more improbable. The microwave oven has become an indispensable inhabitant of the modern kitchen. It is the silent, humming workhorse that promises a hot meal in minutes, earning its place as one of the world’s most beloved appliances. This ubiquity is staggering: 73% of Latin American homes and over 90% of North American households own one, and overall, it’s estimated that a new microwave is sold every few seconds globally, with annual sales consistently soaring into the tens of millions. It is a universal symbol of instant convenience.

But how did this appreciated device come into existence? Well, as the engineer Percy Spencer conducted tests on an active military radar magnetron, he was being bathed in levels of radiation whose risks were not yet fully understood. A danger he accepted as part of his work. But on one test day, he felt an unexpected warmth on his right leg and, reaching into his pocket, found the evidence of a revolutionary idea: his chocolate bar had melted entirely during the test. This seemingly minor domestic mishap, sparked by his own sweet tooth, became the crucial clue that ignited his ingenious curiosity. That simple bar of chocolate set him on the path to harness this technology, ultimately transforming it, from a tool of war, to the appliance that makes heating popcorn at home as easy as pressing a button. The happy accident of the engineer Spencer transformed modern living.

Perhaps it is futile to discuss how AI basically does not make mistakes. AI is a student who has read every book in a massive library and has photographic memory. It’s brilliant, but it can’t actually have a new thought that isn’t somehow extracted from all the references it already consumed. Every time it needs to fill in the gap on a problem, it finds a measured answer, a logical recombination that resembles a model from thousands of other logically similar models.

So, it doesn’t really “make mistakes” in the human sense. We make mistakes because we get distracted, have a weird hunch, or misread the situation in a creatively wrong way. An AI just confidently recombines what it knows. Its “mistakes” are often just smooth, plausible-sounding nonsense, a perfect average of incorrect answers, or a beautiful sentence that means nothing at all. It will never spill coffee on its notes and accidentally invent a new painting style.

Its greatest strength is also its limitation: it optimizes for what “makes sense”, never for the disruptive, contradictory result. It optimizes for coherence, not for the rebellious spark of genius that often arises from incoherence.

And only if you doubt this critical difference: A human Freudian slip is a truth you didn’t mean to tell. An AI hallucination is a lie it doesn’t know it’s telling.

Conclusion: Natural Intelligence Makes AI look like Artificial Incompetence and Yet, Loses Tragically Against It

AI’s output lacks true originality, disruptive force, and any trace of personal meaning. And yet, the work of generative AI is undeniably solid—logical, coherent, and persuasive enough to pass the acid test of the human eye. In today’s market, agility, scale, lower cost, and sheer volume of “good-enough” creations are outpacing and outperforming the slower, rarer, and costlier human alternative.

Undeniable examples of this phenomenon are businesses like the Stock Art & Illustration Market. Platforms like Shutterstock, Getty Images, and countless online marketplaces are now flooded with AI-generated illustrations, logos, and graphic elements. A human illustrator might spend days creating a single, conceptual piece, but the space for that gallant effort has almost vanished.

Another prominent business that changed forever is Content Marketing and copywriting for SEO purposes. A massive portion of the internet’s “new content” is now AI-generated: blog posts, product descriptions, and listicles designed solely to attract search engine traffic. But a human writer who could deliver unique insight, personal style, and a distinct voice to a topic is almost irrelevant.

And of course, AI is rapidly changing the Music and Sound Design business. A series of hyper-productive assembly lines of AI platforms producing generic background music, jingles, and sound loops for videos, podcasts, and mobile games, has replaced what, not more than 3 years ago, was a human musicians and producers exclusive field. AI-generated music often lacks a soulful core. It can be pleasant and perfectly functional, but forgettable and formulaic. It optimizes sounds for harmony but fails to create true musical enchantment. And yet, the job “composer” almost sounds like a distant extinct species. I could go on and on: Gaming, Web development, Journalism, Editorial Arts, Pedagogic Design, Industrial Design, Architecture etc. etc. etc.

Call me a romantic, but the mysticism behind a creation born from the flesh and blood, the hands and eyes of a human creator, has for me a kind of metaphysical effect. Ideas and creations, aside from entertaining us or helping us live a more comfortable life, also connect us with other amazing humans who captured something impossible to reproduce and gave it to us as evidence of human genius.

Still not convinced? Alright, try this. Open up that shiny “bitcoin wallet” of yours and go

window-shopping for a Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT. Stare at it—really drink in the soulless glory of that copy-pasted primate. Done? Now drag your ass to the nearest museum, stand in front of any real painting that actually grabs you, and give it one full minute of your attention. Then come back and, with a straight face, tell me there’s no difference between the two moments of contemplation.

Go ahead, I’ll wait… I’ve got time—I’m a writer. It’s not like I’m rushing against the clock like some overworked, exploited AI agent cranking out monkey cartoons for your crypto feed.