This is such a good take on how we should think about creativity and the creative process at a time when much of the necessary labor can be automated away:

Shigeru Miyamoto, translated by Video Games Chronicle:

“Our generation lived through a period of rapid computer development—a time when tools were constantly evolving, moving from typewriters to word processors.

In the past, for instance, designers were taught in school how to create beautiful lettering for posters; possessing that skill alone was enough to be called a ‘designer.’ Alternatively, one could simply take a design that was trending abroad, give it a ‘Japanese-style’ twist, and be labeled a designer.

However, as computers and technology advanced, a designer’s true individual capabilities, such as their innate sense of layout, finally came to the fore. I believe generative AI represents a similar shift.

We distinguish between ‘creating’ something and the ‘labor’ involved in the process. When you set out to create, you first establish a broad structure, then begin the hands-on work: the tasks that follow, such as filling in gaps or refining the details.

[…]

While the act of creation is inherently satisfying, there’s a danger: one might find satisfaction in the labor itself and mistakenly believe that a high-quality piece of work has been created. In that sense, the more AI replaces these tasks, the more it provides an opportunity to reflect on what’s really important, which I think is a positive thing.

Looking back at past designs, there are some that were created merely by copying and pasting. Yet, such work rarely stands the test of time; it lacks the individual’s particular design intention.

Because the process relies on an individual’s intent, with the computer serving as an assistant for the labor, I believe that even as technology continues to evolve, and even if AI were to eventually handle everything, there will always be a role left for us to play.”

In my roughly 20 years of working as a "creative," I've often seen people confuse the amount of labor that goes into something with its quality. As if the value of their work lies in how long it took to make and how difficult it was to do.

That was never true.

If you're creating something for an audience, the result is usually what matters most. But there's a spectrum here. If you're buying an expensive painting, you probably want to know that a human spent time and effort creating it. The story of its creation can add to its value. The physical painting is the tangible result of human labor. There's a very direct connection between the two.

With digital products, I think it's different. People used to care much less about the act of creation before AI became such a divisive topic. Game studios putting their employees through weeks upon weeks of crunch time rarely seemed to affect how people valued the resulting games. It's interesting how much more attention the production process receives now that the controversy is about machines doing the work rather than humans being overworked.

But here's the thing: Much of the labor involved in creating software doesn't add any value to the final product. It's simply the work required to get from an idea to its execution. Work that, until recently, couldn't be avoided.

And I think that's where we're getting confused again. We're treating the elimination of labor as the elimination of creativity, when those are two very different things.

The value of creative work lies in the ideas, decisions, and vision behind it, not in how difficult the tools make it to bring those things to life.