Idearo, ergo sum

Ideas appear extensively in the sociology of design, in the sociology of innovation and culture. While content and context naturally vary, the way the idea is being communicated affects the perception and appreciation of, and the response to the idea. The presentation of the idea also releases and conveys the emotion embedded in the ideation process. All which reflect and deepen individual and societal understandings of design, both as process and outcome. The advances of technology has not fundamentally changed the underpinnings of ideas. For instance, GenAI simply masks the simple art of observation or what is seen in the imagination. And so, ideas are generated, developed and shaped by the cultures we live in, by the circumstances of life, or by the particular gifts or weaknesses we have as individuals. Indeed ideation lies so deep in human nature that one is tempted to think of it as innate. To paraphrase; I ideate, therefore I am.

I, Me and My Ideas

Does GenAI risk designers getting tangled up in ego and computer-mediated images? For example, the designer who practises ideation as a multi-sensory experience as opposed to merely generating and representing ideas using computer software. That is, for the designer to draw on their own knowledge, experience and emotion as a way to strip their ideation performance of artifice such as GenAI. But whatever the ideation process, analogue, digital or mixed, ideation is commonly driven by the desire to seek reward, or ward (recognition) in return for the effort to be unique or enhance creative reputation. The drive for uniqueness is reflected in how designers fall in love with their own ideas. The act of falling in love with one’s own creation is derived from Greek mythology, in which Pygmalion fell in love with a statue of Aphrodite that he had sculpted. Today, the use of generative models such as ChatGPT and Midjourney suggests that designers are falling in love with the capability of the machine as much as with their own creative capability blurring the identification, and authenticity of "I, Me and Myself" and "They".

Food for thought: Ultra-Processed Design?

A diet of ultra-process food, UPF, when consumed in excess is generally thought of as having negative health implications, such as the increased risk of obesity, diabetes or anxiety. But while processing food is not necessarily a bad thing, what makes ultra-processed foods distinctive is that they have gone through industrial processes that have changed the nature of the original ingredients, leaving little, if any, of the original whole food behind. Could such concerns apply to the design process mediated by artificial intelligence, AI? That is, data, as the most vital ingredient in AI would, metaphorically speaking be compared to ultra-processed food. What makes AI distinctive is that it combines various algorithms to represent and process content. For example, to generate text, various processing techniques transform raw characters (e.g., letters, punctuation and words) into sentences, parts of speech, and actions which are represented as vectors. Similarly, images are transformed into various visual elements, also expressed as vectors. But is it justified to label AI data as a digital version of UPF as it may conjure up images of junk AI, AI addiction or AI obesity. Dietitians argue that it is  the overall dietary pattern that matters, not individual foods. Sufficient to say, then, it is  the mix of design tools computing included that matters, not AI per se. Yet the comparison can be informative and contribute to healthy conversations about the role of AI in design.

Risk of over-dependence on AI?

Skills that once were core to designing, such as hand drawing and rendering, have become less prevalent and less practised in the digital age. And as computers perform many tasks that once depended on designers independently, artificial intelligence is impacting the design process from first thoughts to final outcomes. But as the use of AI among designers has become widespread, reliance on algorithmic systems designers might become too dependent on AI-generated content that, moreover, might be too similar to each other. That is, given the same prompt by various users, GenAI generates the same output. This risks a feedback loop where AI, trained on AI-generated data and data from GenAI users (data contributors) results in diminishing returns of new ideas blurring the line between innovator and imitator.*. In extreme feedback scenarios one might even talk about de-generative AI. The counter argument is that AI simply enhances the creative process through collaboration between machines and humans? That is, combining AI with human intuition and emotional depth might yield outcomes that neither AI nor humans could achieve alone. Anticipating AI evolution, then, is difficult as algorithm development is fluid and dynamic (fluid non-linear dynamics are utilised in machine learning) and with each new development, new potential risks and opportunities arise. The challenge for designers, then, when ideation itself reflects transition and transformation, is to leverage GenAI to facilitate and enrich the design process.  * 58% of British architects say AI increases the risk of their work being imitated, in RIBA AI Report 2024.

Complexity and contradiction in ideation

Design ideas, pragmatically speaking can be characterised as either simple or complex where the simple idea proposes a fairly straightforward, low risk solution to the problem at hand whereas the complex idea combines several simple ideas to produce one idea but at a higher level of uncertainty. Designers deal with both simple and complex ideas although simple ideas are typically easier to generate and communicate to clients and other stakeholders. Overall, clients prefer simple ideas as they are easier to understand and execute and are less likely to go wrong. Yet complexity reflects the multi-layered reality of the world around us which calls for deeper levels of understanding and greater problem solving ability on the part of designers. So what about contradiction between simplicity and complexity? Design ideas, as elements of thought, overlap and interrelate and are developed and articulated through the project. And so, ideation can be seen as a puzzle of simple and complex ideas put together by the designers and stakeholders involved in the project. In this pursuit, Generative AI has become a powerful ideation tool, and a virtual member of the design team.

2025: What have we here?

In a famous 1903 letter, the Austrian poet Rainer Maria Rilke (1875-1926) urges a protege of his to 'be patient toward all that is unsolved ... to try to love the questions themselves like locked rooms and like books that are written in a very foreign tongue … The point is, to live everything. Live the questions now.' And so, what have we here? A bit of self-help that suggests how questions generate ideas, and vice versa. In other words, questions trigger ideas that pave the way for design solutions.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts

Loosely defined as computer systems performing tasks that typically require human intelligence, AI is developing so fast that within the next 20 years, and according to Geoffrey Hilton, a pioneer on machine learning and neural network algorithms, we’re going to develop AI systems that are smarter than people. Similarly, the historian Yuval Harari, in writing on AI (Nexus, 2024) warns that we have now created a non-conscious but very powerful alien intelligence that, if mishandled, can extinguish the human domination on earth. Tim Berners-Lee, the World Wide Web inventor, is concerned about the impact of big tech and digital media and holds that social manipulation, lack of transparency and surveillance with AI technology could, and should be countered by establishing effective safeguards. Yet while the risk of loss of human influences through algorithms needs to be taken seriously, there are limitations to AI compared to Human Intelligence in terms of creativity, intuition and adaptability let alone ethical and moral values. And so while AI is a powerful tool and an increasingly viable alternative in many areas, design ideation included, it is not yet a complete substitute for human intelligence. Positively, then, AI and human intelligence can complement each other, leveraging the strengths of both to achieve more through collaboration than either alone. That is, together, humans and AI are greater/better/more than the sum of its parts.