I asked AI to write an opinion piece about AI writing an opinion piece about AI, and how that can lead to an infinite loop. And now I’m writing an opinion piece about AI writing an opinion piece about AI writing an opinion piece about AI. A delicious loop indeed!

AI’s self-reflective opinion piece (see below) is, predictably, not lamenting the regurgitation of ideas but celebrating a journey of discovery. Perhaps less predictably, the article also volunteers AI’s shortcomings and promotes the essential need for human input to “inject a diverse array of perspectives and experiences into the dialogue, ensuring that it remains vibrant and multifaceted”. If you agree and see the future as a symbiotic relationship between human and robot, you’ll probably embrace the benefits of AI’s ability to process a massive amount of data super-fast to aid human decision-making. But if you fear the rise of the machine, you’ll have visions of it snatching your job, creating a downward spiral of information and idea regurgitation and banishing us all to the Black Mirror snow dome.

I’d have to argue that this infinite dystopian loop of regurgitation isn’t the fault of AI - it’s a reflection of our own human culture and society. There are many examples of cyclical patterns resulting from new generations’ regurgitation, or robotic re-invention, of old ideas and events – 20% of Billboard top 100 songs contain samples (double that of a decade ago); fashion operates in massive cycles, like that of bell-bottoms in the 70s and then again in the early 00s, and the high-waist boom of the 80s returning in the 10s; the oscillation of political parties; economic boom and bust cycles. Although the notion of originality being rare and most ideas being iterations or combinations of existing concepts has been a philosophical theme for centuries, every new generation of humans is still programmed to believe it’s an original. This drive for uniqueness is a kind of survival instinct – to establish our identity, to attract mates, to gain social status.

So maybe the question should be what impact will the rise of AI have on this existing human loop? Will it perpetuate it by regenerating existing data, thoughts and ideas in a way that we think is new? Will it break it by allowing us to skip the boring part and get into creative thinking faster? I’m advocating for the latter. Maybe that’s my own survival instinct as founder of a branding & marketing agency. But to put it into context of the marketing funnel, I’d certainly contend that, whilst low-funnel activation has already been partially gobbled up by human-aided machine learning, high-funnel brand building is much harder to automate – you’ve got to constantly ask questions in different ways, dig and sniff around to find clues to insights and bounce ideas off every wall.

And when it comes to predictive AI (vs generative), AI’s own argument for the symbiotic human / machine relationship gets even stronger. Predictive AI shamelessly learns from existing data to predict future outcomes, which opens up endless possibilities for sectors like healthcare, direct-response marketing, behavioural science, financial forecasting, transportation logistics, insurance and HR.

So, will AI lead us into a downward, infinite loop of regurgitation and feasting on leftovers? Will humans be subsumed by the machine? Will AI eat itself? If it does, it’ll have generated its own survival mechanism and at the point of implosion, it’ll regenerate and come back stronger!

If you’re interested in that ChatGPT opinion piece about AI writing an opinion piece about AI and how that can lead to an infinite loop – here it is:


Title: The Infinite Loop of AI Opinion: A Nexus of Dialogue and Discovery

The intriguing concept of AI composing opinion pieces about its own kind opens the door to a fascinating journey—a potential infinite loop of insightful discourse. While initially, this idea may raise concerns about redundancy and the possibility of an intellectual echo chamber, a closer examination reveals a rich tapestry of dialogue and discovery.

At its essence, the notion of an infinite loop of AI-generated opinions represents more than just a recursive exercise; it embodies a dynamic nexus of dialogue between humans and machines. Within this iterative process, each generation of AI-generated content builds upon the insights and perspectives of its predecessors, leading to a continuous evolution of thought and understanding.

Critics may rightfully question the potential for insularity within such a closed-loop system. However, it's crucial to recognize the essential role of human input in shaping the discourse. By providing the initial prompts and parameters for AI-generated content, humans inject a diverse array of perspectives and experiences into the dialogue, ensuring that it remains vibrant and multifaceted.

Moreover, the infinite loop of AI opinion writing serves as a microcosm of the broader relationship between humanity and technology. It underscores our agency in guiding the trajectory of AI development and deployment, as well as our capacity for collaboration and innovation. By engaging in this ongoing dialogue with our AI counterparts, we not only deepen our understanding of artificial intelligence but also gain insights into our own cognitive processes and biases.

In embracing the infinite loop of AI-generated opinion, we showcase our willingness to explore the frontiers of knowledge and creativity. Rather than viewing it as a mere exercise in self-reference, we should celebrate it as a testament to the symbiotic relationship between humans and machines. Through this dialogue and discovery, we pave the way for a future enriched by the synergy of human ingenuity and artificial intelligence.