Creative Industries, the initial disruption

Over a decade ago I worked in an economic development unit for a consortium of local authorities with responsibility for the creative industries. Just prior to that I was a Cultural Policy Officer. So it was interesting to read the NESTA led report on 'The State of Creativity, policy research industry' report, 2023, to see how a lead body in the UK is responding to the threats and opportunities of AI in the sector.

Report Summary

The State of Creativity is a report that reflects on the creative industry policy over the last 10 years and asks where next for the creative sector. It was published by the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre (PEC) in 2021 and includes contributions from 24 creative industry thinkers from seven UK universities and across the creative sector.

The report covers four main themes: innovation, skills, diversity and place. It explores the challenges and opportunities that the creative industries face in each of these areas, and provides recommendations for policy makers, researchers and practitioners to support the growth and resilience of the sector.

Some of the key findings and recommendations of the report are:

- Innovation: The creative industries are a major source of innovation for the UK economy, but they need more support to access finance, data and infrastructure. The report suggests creating a Creative Industries Innovation Fund, developing a Creative Industries Data Strategy and establishing a network of Creative R&D Partnerships.

- Skills: The creative industries have a skills gap and a skills mismatch, which are exacerbated by the impact of Covid-19 and Brexit. The report calls for a Creative Skills Plan, a Creative Careers Service and a Creative Freelancers Academy to address these issues and ensure a diverse and talented workforce for the sector.

- Diversity: The creative industries are not representative of the UK population in terms of gender, ethnicity, disability, socio-economic background and geography. The report urges for a Creative Diversity Pledge, a Creative Diversity Charter and a Creative Diversity Index to measure and improve diversity and inclusion in the sector.

- Place: The creative industries are unevenly distributed across the UK, with London and the South East dominating the sector. The report advocates for a Creative Places Strategy, a Creative Places Fund and a Creative Places Network to foster regional growth and collaboration in the sector.

The report concludes that the creative industries have a vital role to play in the UK's economic recovery and social wellbeing, but they need a coherent and ambitious policy framework to unleash their full potential.

A notable feature, or lack thereof, from the report is Artificial Intelligence, with little to no comprehension of how AI is fundamentally changing the entirety of the creative industry sector. It is mentioned four times in the text, for example, ‘ A common research finding, however, is that creative jobs are more resistant to automation’, when it’s emerging that's entirely the opposite.

References are as follow:

Time to prioritise creative education P.10

“Meanwhile, it has become apparent over time that the importance of creative skills in the workforce will continue to grow. The rise in artificial intelligence (AI) and mobile robotics technologies has raised new fears about automation, which unlike previous waves, threatens high-cognition, skills-intensive jobs. A common research finding, however, is that creative jobs are more resistant to automation (Bakhshi, Frey, et al., 2015) and employers will increasingly demand creative skills like originality, fluency of ideas and complex problem-solving. Demand for creative digital skills will see especially rapid growth (Bakhshi et al., 2019) “

p .32

“The US government, for example, has identified silicon-chip manufacture and export as an area of strategic and geopolitical importance and has acted accordingly. Why are we not doing the same for sub-sectors of the UK creative sector where we have a strategic edge, like generative artificial intelligence? Of course, one problem currently facing UK policymakers is that you cannot look at the international trade and development picture without considering Brexit, which put a massive kink in our growth trajectory. One challenge is Brexit’s negative impact on staffing and maintaining the talent we educate at our world-leading universities. “

p.40

While the UK’s departure from the EU single market leaves room for legal divergence on e-commerce, IP and tech regulation (e.g. with respect to artificial intelligence), adopting radically different national regulatory approaches in a connected digital environment is challenging. The UK’s emerging approach to codes of practice (for platform firms) and inter-agency co-operation (between communications regulator Ofcom, the Digital Markets Unit within the Competition and Markets Authority, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Financial Conduct Authority) is in competition with other global models. Will platforms be willing and able to adjust terms of service for each jurisdiction? How do national regulators audit and enforce new obligations on online platforms in practice? Are revenue flows from platforms to creators changing? Comparative international analyses of the effects of emerging regimes of tech regulation should be a research priority

R&D p.43

Of course, innovation is about more than R&D. Many creative firms engage in design, which is strongly associated with both innovation and exports (Tether, 2021; Tether & Yu, 2022). So while broadening the concept of R&D is important, we must not fixate on R&D at the expense of other key innovation activities, including responding to new opportunities, such as new technologies. Innovation in this area can be seen in the rise of creative technology (createch) (Mateos-Garcia 2021a, 2021b; Siepel et al., 2022) and the increasing use of artificial intelligence in the creative sector (Davies et al., 2020). But it is not always straightforward for firms to make the most of these opportunities as doing so involves undertaking R&D, design and other activities. They do not need to go it alone, however: working with others and using external resources, such as those in creative clusters and universities, are key (Lyons & Davies, 2022).

An Industry View

The (White Paper) study, produced by Creative Engine, rather opportunistically perhaps, "surveyed creatives across various roles, ages, and industries, provides unprecedented insights into the attitudes, concerns, and expectations surrounding AI in the creative space. Here are some of our key findings:

• The creative industry is highly aware of AI’s presence and potential impact.
• Most creatives believe that AI will improve or streamline their workflow (71.7%) and expect it to impact their roles within the next decade (74.3%).
• Only a small percentage (6.2%) of respondents strongly agreed that AI threatens their job security.
• While opinions on AI’s long-term potential are divided, the majority are cautiously optimistic.

Nearly two-thirds of professionals recognise AI’s transformative potential and believe that those who do not adopt it will be left behind by competitors."

These would seem a highly optimistic views, both from this company and the lead body for UK creative industries.

Alternative Views:

The Harvard Business Review, "How Generative AI Could Disrupt Creative Work" article by De Cremer, Nicola Morini Bianzino, and Falk, April 13, 2023 concludes:

“Prepare for disruption, and not only to your job. Generative AI could be the biggest change in the cost structure of information production since the creation of the printing press in 1439. The centuries that followed featured rapid innovation, socio-political volatility, and economic disruption across a swathe of industries as the cost of acquiring knowledge and information fell precipitously. We are in the very early stages of the generative AI revolution. We expect the near future therefore to be more volatile than the recent past.

With generative AI a major disruptor of our creative work has emerged. Businesses and the world at large will show little patience to apply the new emerging technologies to promote swiftly our level of productivity and content generation. So, be prepared to invest significant time and effort to master the art of creativity in a world dominated by generative AI.

At the same time, we also need to be careful that we seriously consider what these new technologies mean for being a creative human today and how much importance we wish to assign to the role of human authenticity in art and content. In other words, with generative AI at the forefront of our work existence what will our relationship with creativity be? It was Einstein who said that creativity is intelligence having fun. Creative work is thus also something that brings meaning and emotion to the lives of humans.

From that perspective, businesses and society will be responsible to decide how much of the creative work will ultimately be done by AI and how much by humans. Finding the balance here will be an important challenge when we move ahead with integrating generative AI in our daily work existence.”

PwC, recently posted: 'How will automation impact jobs?'

We've analysed over 200,000 jobs in 29 countries to explore the economic benefits and potential challenges posed by automation.

• 3% of jobs at potential risk of automation by early 2020s
• 30% of jobs at potential risk of automation by mid-2030s
• 44% of workers with low education at risk of automation by mid-2030s

These two paint rather a different picture, and, I daresay, offer a more accurate reflection of the disruptive state of the associated AI technologies. 

Tiny Rant

I realise policy responses to changing environments are difficult, the writers having reliance on far too few fields, so the content is rarely as multi-disciplinary as needed to be of utility. However, like much policy in this vital sector of the economy, I consider many of the recent reports, policy responses and legislation are unfit for purpose. I have read through decades worth of reports from ACE, the Treasury, DBT and various bodies, beginning with the GLC reports of the 1980's. I've even written a small number myself. So I apologise if you are reading this and feel I am disparaging your hard work. One of the most common issues though for researchers' and policy makers is short-termism. This is not just confined to government responses to policy. It is also inherent in the work, as an LSE blog pointed out:

Policymakers usually make decisions in a complex environment with limited time for reflection. Ministers want to demonstrate progress quickly and are usually rewarded for spending public funds on today’s visible problems rather than reducing future risks. Short-term and symbolic policies will be the right approach for particular situations, but good government can’t simply be about better firefighting – it needs to learn to prevent fires.

In this particular time, 2023, it is more vital than ever that researchers and policy writers produce honest, and upfront work to clearly articulate the significant challenges emergent technologies pose to the creative industries. It's not just jobs at stake here, but the control for vibrant, passionate, human expression. Or should it be left to corporate machine 'creativity', that's been spun off the work of real humans, without compensation with an impending 44% job loss to show for it?