Generative Intelligence or Creative Storytelling | Media.com

As it happened, GenAI did not inherit human intelligence, but it does quite well taking on our culture. And this is where the difference matters most.We don’t reason with a single engine. We switch modes constantly, naturally flowing with context, adapting to the situation and the audience. Socially, we reason by analogy — feeling the pattern, recalling past experiences. That’s how our language works, our storytelling, our bonding with others, how we relate. Analogy is natural, easy to visualize and grasp, it can get very creative, and it sits at the very core of our human nature, it is subconscious. We don’t even care much whether it is strictly true — that’s not the point. We care if it resonates and relates well, if it fits our shared mental image. That’s where our “common sense” lives.Other times, we are forced to become very strict and direct. In math or physics, analogy is an unwelcome liability. Science seeks proof, no matter how elegant or intuitive something feels. We need solid ground below, proven over and over, something universal. The reasoning model here is discipline: induction from observation, deduction from facts, causal reasoning demanding ground truth. You can’t argue your way out of gravity with a good metaphor, at least not in a science class. Nature does not negotiate; it lives by laws and prime numbers.And this works out well. Society runs on shared stories and beliefs, science on shared constraints. Both are human, and they complement each other. In society, repetition can turn gossip into truth — flip the coin enough times. In science, we seek traceability: every statement must be founded on a prime primitive, a proven fact.So how does GenAI navigate our reasoning landscape? Well, being very suggestive in my own reasoning here, it is amazingly good at stitching together our stories. It absorbs language, cultural trends, norms, ideas, opinions, and compresses them into very convincing storylines — something we are eager to accept. I would say it excels at abductive reasoning, suggesting what might be true based on a vast collection of analogies from our own human experience. It gently warms us up to take on that suggestion, comfortably skipping deductive reasoning in favor of a prêt-à-porter, well-resonating proposition, very sneaky indeed. It does not touch the ground or know which statements are true by meaning, but it is very well versed in composing a believable outcome. It builds analogy on top of analogy, abstraction on top of abstraction, until the structure becomes coherent, creative, practically useful — but somewhat fragile. When output becomes input and summaries become sources, analogy starts feeding on itself. This is how cultures form; it’s also how myths and legends are handed down through generations. Though this is not a bug but a feature, but the problem is that we are confusing reasoning by analogy with intelligence as a whole. Maybe the term itself is misleading — perhaps it’s closer to an Artificial Subconsciousness in its creative storytelling.To finish on a positive note, when we come to true AGI, it should be closer to a conductor. It will apply analogy when appropriate and utilize other human reasoning methods to validate and support statements. It will mindfully choose when to be creative and when to be diligent and deductive in search of truth. It will be frank and acknowledge a lack of facts when it cannot answer. Intelligence will be knowing when to refuse to improvise.We did not evolve intelligence by perfecting analogy; we survived by learning when analogy fails. The moment it can do the same — structurally grounding its reasoning — that is when the conversation about AGI actually begins.&nbsp;As for now, let’s enjoy the storytelling. &nbsp;

Open

Stockholm

Sweden

Timur Alimbayev

SRE / SAFe Agile Lead, Telecom IoT

Public

User

Verified

Active

Generative Intelligence or Creative Storytelling