Convenience Is Replacing Creativity and Originality

In the era of instant dopamine, which fuels FOMO around posting tales with the depth of gossip and pretence, we need to collectively look forward to original glamour and quality of life. Posting to give an update and share moments is completely different from cribbing about missing the chance to post that almost-perfect smile. In the urge to post and stay convenient to the new norms, we quickly restyle that apparently ugly pic and somehow convince ourselves that it is creative. However, nobody realises that convenience is erasing the originality, and there is no creativity to it. That pure moment is already restyled to norms that could become a stigma in future.

 It seems harmless to generate a caption or generate inspos for your painting. However, the catch is that you are stuck in the loop of a database that has access to millions of users in the same category. The world is upgrading swifter; all we need is refreshments and upgrades at the pace or even faster. Humans have a natural tendency to minimise effort—both mental and physical. Yet, at the same time, everyone seeks quality, originality, and something different. If you bring something that doesn’t emerge from the same circulating pool of information—something that introduces a new perspective—its recognition may be delayed. But originality follows a delayed reward curve; eventually, it finds its place and defines its own value.

This pattern does not remain confined to behaviour alone—it extends into the legal framework governing creativity and ownership. Contemporary intellectual property laws were built on the assumption of identifiable human authorship and deliberate creative effort. However, in the context of artificial intelligence, this assumption begins to weaken.

For instance, under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 9(3) attributes authorship of computer-generated works to the person making the “necessary arrangements.” Similarly, India’s Copyright Act, 1957, under Section 2(d)(vi) follows a comparable approach. While these provisions attempt to fill the gap, they primarily address who can be called the author, rather than what constitutes originality in such works. This becomes significant when viewed alongside modern AI systems, which generate outputs by processing vast datasets of pre-existing human-created content. The legal framework, therefore, recognises authorship at the level of output, but remains largely silent on attribution and originality at the level of input. In effect, the law validates the act of creation without fully interrogating the origin of the creativity itself.

International bodies such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation have acknowledged this emerging challenge, noting that existing copyright regimes may not be fully equipped to address issues arising from AI-generated content and training data usage. The absence of a harmonised global standard further complicates enforcement, particularly in a digital environment that operates beyond territorial boundaries.

Consequently, a structural gap emerges: while human psychology leans towards convenience and systems are designed to reinforce it, the law—though evolving—has yet to fully capture the implications of this shift on originality, attribution, and creative ownership. This raises a broader question—not merely of legality, but of integrity in the way creativity is produced, consumed, and recognised.