Ai Driven = Ai Derived ? Not for a Da Vinci Determinate

When the hard stop of intellectual property protection is thrown by the wayside due to infinite ” uniqueness ” at what point does collective knowledge co-construction mean limitless innovation derivation ? It may be close to 100% thanks to Ai.

With an incredibly and over simplistic timeline lens of, say, just the last 4000 years ( plus or minus 2000 years on the standard Zero AD western calendar ) when we examine previous generations of tool making, design, and thus engineering capability, we see specifically, throughout the evolution and acquisition of ( say artistic, mathematical, etc ) skills the capability of specific designs and engineering functionality to be recognized and protected with a very high bar. To become a master took incredible time, patience and resilience. To create something unique and usable an even longer time. To have said efforts and outputs put into production and so to increase a users natural human capabilities even longer.

Sans digital tool creation and usage, and only focusing on physical object creation and production and specifically within the context that Ai-Driven Learning And Complex Adaptive Systems may in the future have the ability to create incredible jumps in end functionality of physical goods, one of the biggest explosions of creativity is taking place right under our noses. Driven by a factor that is uniquely overlooked ( the size of your mailing list / active social media users ) means it is  ( and not even by the end user sometimes ) the end producers that are driving what is possible for end users to enjoy and have in their lives. Think something as simple and elegant as the Eames Chair designs.

With the capability of ” the master ” mindset ( and certainly within the aspects of visual creativity being a button push away ) the idea that a Da Vinci mindset and personal capability to produce specific and unique output is now almost a side thought. The ability to have a Da Vinci determinate or timeline from creation to ownership is now ( via a typical 1st created, prototyped and manufactured model – and as always somehow within the context of the 4 year lab to real time window ) we are beginning to experience the technological capability of Ai to completely take over the idea of creativity as a value based exponent for new product development efforts. What does this mean? That an infinite creativity capability means that the idea of uniqueness may all but be over, that small changes to any existing X means the original ( no matter how ” unique ” ) can be determined to be not similar in any way to new productions and thus indefensible.

How this becomes factorized into the way where ” new ” and ” unique ” outputs are delivered, and especially within the context of physical products could be that medium-performing ( complexity ) groups – those who are more likely to involve and reply on online behaviors may be substantially more productive at avoiding specific cases of similarity to per-existing manufactured products versus situations where low-performing ( complexity ) groups and who likely to conduct design and new product development activities through verbal discourses and intense conversational efforts, may, no longer be rewarded for ” uniqueness ” not generated by Ai systems. The reliance on ” activity ” in the creative process ( and where generative Ai output is used to evaluate and increase ” uniqueness ” ) regardless of exact uniqueness becomes an issue.

Where specific and known product development lifetimes ( of use ) and value were previously well know ( and in some cases lengthy ) the time window for ” newness ” to leap over existing XYZ new product development efforts is shrinking at an incredible pace. Why? Because uniqueness ( in many aspects ) can no longer be protected and where generative Ai becomes both the emancipator and the limiting factor to ownership of breakthroughs.