What does “humanness” mean to you?
Following the 2023 Quirk's Event season, I’m still trying to piece together my thoughts surrounding a theme that seemed to arise repeatedly: "The human element.” And not just in the context of AI, but in the ways that companies interact with their customers, their employees and the world at large.
“The human element” was suffering long before AI began its exponential growth. In fact, part of the reason AI hasn’t intimidated me as much as it maybe ought to is because I already felt like our society had reached a tipping point. And while AI does perhaps threaten certain aspects of “humanness,” in large part it has acted as a foil in illuminating the dissonance that many (including me) already felt. Apparently, it takes something so starkly nonhuman to solidify our desire for all things deeply human, be that art, connection or the sense of hope that keeps people working on issues such as climate change, sustainable food systems and inequality.
In the end, maybe AI is more of a symptom of our loss of humanness than a cause.
Over the course of the 2023 Quirk’s Events, I noticed this wonderful theme of “the human element” cropping up time and time again, more than ever before – and I think it is because the severity of human disconnect has been so neatly brought to light by AI. In speaking sessions and conversations with researchers throughout the events, I heard a renewed intentionality to utilize and protect the human element, whether that’s during the research process itself, in branding and advertising, in engaging and treasuring employees or in being a steward of the earth.
Anecdotally, I’ve noticed this shift in intentionality among myself and my peers as well. We’re more people-focused, more interested in common ground, more fascinated by the weird and wonderful activities people devoted themselves to over the course of the pandemic. Crisis has the unique ability to urgently redefine priorities, where we might otherwise submit parts of our lives and communities to slow decay. And we’ve had several years of good, honest crisis to redefine those priorities.
Looking at creativity through the lens of AI
A particular speaking session at the 2023 New York Quirk’s Event helped to solidify some of my thoughts on this issue. Kerry-Ellen Schwartz, director of foresights and portfolio innovation at PepsiCo, discussed the idea of creativity through the lens of AI – in particular, in what ways AI could actually boost human creativity. Schwartz pointed out that AI does not and should not need to be “creative” – it just needs to eliminate the tensions in a person’s life that keep them from acting out their own creativity.
Ideally, AI shouldn’t take away any aspect of our lives – it should return them. We don’t need or want artificial intelligence to write novels or stand-up routines. We just need it to free up our time and energy from menial tasks so we can once again engage with the parts of our lives that industrialization and productivity culture have effectively shelved.
The question, then, is whether we choose to allow AI to become a tool or a “solution” – and who AI will ultimately benefit. Will it relieve tensions from our lives, or will it create new ones? Will it allow space in our lives so we can reconnect with ourselves, our communities and our families, or will it further isolate those within a society already burdened by an epidemic of depression and loneliness?
What is the cost of innovation?
In 1987, writer, poet and farmer Wendell Berry challenged the notion that technological advancement necessarily benefited humanity in an essay titled, “Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer” (a declaration that he has held in the following 35 years as a prolific writer). To Berry, using a computer would not only play into the ecological devastation that he’s spent his life speaking out against, but it would also supersede his relationship with his wife and editor. Finally, the increased quality or quantity of his writing would never come close to outweighing the cost of that innovation.
“I do not see why I should not be as scientific about this as the next fellow,” writes Berry. “When somebody has used a computer to write work that is demonstrably better than Dante's, and when this better is demonstrably attributable to the use of a computer, then I will speak of computers with a more respectful tone of voice, though I still will not buy one.”
In the essay, Berry offered a list of nine standards technological innovation should meet. Though the standards were written in 1987, AI qualifies for many of them. It offers efficiency that can complete tasks more cheaply and sustainably; it can be demonstrably better at certain tasks than what it has replaced (human labor); it is effectively smaller than the infrastructure required for human-led work.
But, critically, it falls short on the last and most important standard: That it “should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists, and this includes family and community relationships” – and, I would add, creativity and that vital human element.
The (human) role of creativity and storytelling in marketing research
The marketing research industry was formed around the idea that consumer opinions matter. That, ultimately, a happy customer makes a happy company. This idea has tentatively expanded into the notion that the health and happiness of employees and the environment is also critical – but effectively honoring this idea requires continual work and consideration in an industry that is constantly changing.
In another speaking session at Quirk’s New York this year, Anthony Jackel, director of consumer analytics at Ferrara Candy, represented the University of Georgia | MRII in presenting recent findings about career development and employee satisfaction within the marketing research industry. For both research vendors and clients alike, the most important key driver for job satisfaction was the availability of opportunities to learn and grow.
This makes sense; Jackel noted that just one-in-five researchers actually intended to join the MR industry out of college. The marketing research and insight industry is made up of people who stumbled into the field and stayed because it was fascinating. It’s a distinctly creative, human endeavor.
In fact, Jackel suggested that, when hiring, companies might stress the creative and storytelling aspects of the job to appeal to new talent – the human element is largely what has made a career in marketing research attractive. “At the end of the day we’re all human, and we’re trying to tell a human story about the data that we have,” says Jackel.
Holding to the human
AI isn’t going anywhere, and I wouldn’t necessarily argue that it should. But the past several years have renewed our focus on all things human, and we would do well to hold to that new priority while implementing AI into our work.
Kerry-Ellen Schwartz noted the risk of someone using AI to mimic a brand’s identity and create a PR nightmare. The way to combat this, says Schwartz, is to solidify a brand’s values and messaging to let consumers know clearly what they stand for.
I believe this idea holds true for AI implementation within a company as well; it’s more important than ever to understand and communicate a company’s intentions toward consumers, employees and the planet, and implement AI according to those standards – not the other way around. The modern, skeptical consumer won’t settle for less, and neither should an industry that has always held humanness so close to its heart.