Working under influence: When AI prompts take over creativity

By 2025, it is expected that 90% of the content available on the internet will be produced with the help of artificial intelligence

Source: https://quidgest.com/en/blog-en/generative-ai-by-2025/

Even though this is just a projection, it highlights how AI is poised to profoundly shape the future of the Internet. This article serves as a thought experiment to explore how the overuse of prompts could lead to dependency and a decline in creativity—not just for individual users, but for humanity as a whole. So, let’s dive in...

The digital overload and its consequences

The rise of AI-driven assistants has transformed the way work is done. From streamlining tasks to generating content, these tools promise efficiency and ease. However, just as digital tools revolutionized work, they also created new forms of dependence. Excessive reliance on AI-generated prompts risks diminishing cognitive flexibility, shaping thoughts before they even fully form.

The ability to think independently, imagine novel ideas, and develop problem-solving skills depends on the brain’s engagement in the creative process. If constantly guided by AI, the risk emerges of working under influence—where decisions, thoughts, and creativity become subtly dictated by an external algorithm rather than an internal spark.

The pros of AI assistance

The advantages of AI are undeniable. Productivity skyrockets when tedious tasks are automated. AI provides rapid access to information, accelerates research, and generates structured outputs in seconds. Workflows become more efficient, allowing individuals to focus on strategy rather than execution.

Additionally, it helps break writer’s block, refine complex ideas, and create well-structured content. Used wisely, it can enhance, rather than replace, human intelligence.

The cons of overusing AI prompts

Despite its benefits, excessive reliance on AI can erode originality and narrow human creativity, I would even say narrow human intelligence. If every thought begins with an AI-generated suggestion, spontaneous ideation takes a backseat. Instead of forming an idea from scratch, the mind begins to expect pre-made inputs, shaping thoughts in ways that conform to algorithmic patterns rather than individual creativity.

There is also the risk of intellectual passivity. AI offers instant answers, reducing the natural cognitive effort required for deep thinking. Over time, problem-solving skills may weaken as the brain becomes accustomed to outsourcing complex thought processes. The mind, like a muscle, not only needs challenges to stay sharp but also requires regular practice—over-reliance on AI can lead to stagnation and even decline.

Narrowing of the global thought diversity

Finally, the homogenization of ideas becomes a concern. AI models are trained on existing data, meaning their outputs are inherently derived from what has already been created. If every professional leans on similar AI-generated structures, differentiation in thought and innovation may decline, leading to an ecosystem of recycled ideas rather than groundbreaking new ones.

By 2025, it is estimated that 90% of the content available on the internet will be produced with the help of artificial intelligence. Considering this trend, if AI-generated information is repeatedly processed by AI, it could lead to a gradual narrowing of the diversity, ultimately converging toward a consensus in the future.

In a world where critical thinking is essential for challenging ideas and fostering democracy, AI-generated content poses a significant risk. It could create a "monopolistic thinking world", where new ideas emerge only from a deterministic and limited pool, potentially stifling creativity, innovation, and diverse perspectives.

This illustration represents the narrowing of thought diversity over time due to increasing reliance on generative AI.

• Gray curve ("initial thought diversity"): Represents a broad range of human creativity, where individuals explore diverse and unconventional ideas.
• Blue curve ("AI influence"): As AI-generated content becomes more integrated into workflows, thought diversity begins to shrink, with more ideas clustering around expected norms.
• Red curve ("long-term homogenization"): Over time, excessive dependence on AI-generated prompts further reduces deviation from common patterns, leading to a narrower range of original thinking and less "out-of-the-box" innovation.

This trend highlights the risk of AI reinforcing conventional knowledge while suppressing radical new ideas, ultimately shaping a more uniform intellectual landscape.

Finding balance

Recognizing these risks does not mean rejecting AI but rather using it strategically. Instead of allowing AI to dictate every step of the creative process, it can be leveraged as a tool to refine human-generated ideas. Engaging in manual brainstorming before consulting AI can help retain originality while still benefiting from its efficiency.

Limiting the use of AI for specific tasks—such as fact-checking or summarization—rather than idea generation ensures that independent thought remains at the core of creative work. Writing first drafts, solving problems without immediate assistance, and practicing deep thinking without external prompts can rebuild cognitive strength.

Credits

This article was imagined and written by a human (Djomangan Adama Ouattara). It was then reshaped under influence with the help of ChatGPT and then rectified to insure that the original thinking was not altered by AI.