The human factor in ideation

It is now commonplace to start the ideation process by prompting generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, rather than traditional search engines, such as Google. This is because designers tend to use longer, more complex search terms instead of concise generic keywords. And so, whereas Google is typically used for direct questions or transactions, ChatGPT is a handy tool for idea generation, that is, the user instructs (prompts) the AI model to support the iterative design process. Google, however, has responded to the chatbot challenge by offering AI functionality to its traditional search engine, aka "AI mode". Yet, depending on the context, an AI search engine might work as well as, or better than ChatGPT. That is, in many ways, AI search engines work with the same fundamental information as traditional search engines. This highlights the human factor,which includes ethical thought, and the need to recognise the non-technological side of the design process. That is to say, the role of the human factor in innovation might be overlooked or undervalued in the AI matrix of speed and efficiency - an issue the workshop tries to address.

AI-deation workshop

The results of GenAI design tools, such as Midjourney and ChatGPT tend to be derivative often producing illusions of newness or varieties of sameness, and potentially unethical because AI technologies rely on training data drawn from the web without referencing the sources. Yet the use of GenAI is now commonplace and used by designers to generate and develop ideas. That is, ChatGPT appears to be working like a co-designer for bouncing ideas creating content and narratives in texts and images. But how would this collaboration between human and machine perform in the ideation workshop? Well, instead of banning GenAI in the workshop, using it would be a requirement. But with the important proviso not to take the results for granted. That is, GenAI outputs should be questioned, modified or even destroyed. This approach to AI-ideation is of a critical nature that reflects how algorithmic calculations regarding speed and efficiency risk leaving out thoughtful thinking and humane attitudes, criteria that also may recall speculative design, that is, design not necessarily commercially-driven or aimed at problem solving*. Sources: https://bravedog.co.uk/journal/ai-didnt-kill-designers-killed-lazy-design  https://borism.medium.com/design-against-the-machine-72648374aec1 *Speculative Design (or Critical Design’) is an approach to design developed at the Royal College or Art London. It grew out of concerns with the uncritical drive behind technological progress, when technology is always assumed to be good and capable of solving any problem.