[adventured]

The author is very incorrect.

> By network effects of creativity, I mean that every additional user on TikTok makes every other user more creative.

That is false.

TikTok isn't a creativity amplification network, it's a mimic network. The extreme majority of humans are mimics, they essentially never create or do anything creative or original. They are incapable of that (cue the outrage at such a statement, even though it's true). They play follow the leader across a lifetime. TikTok, like most social networks, represents that accurately. What TikTok does not represent, is a burst of individual creativity that is widespread.

It's a creativity distribution channel. The 0.01% that are originators distribute creativity to the drone mimics and they copy and share it.

That's exactly what the dance copying represents for example. There is no great creativity explosion going on there, quite the opposite. As with YouTube or any other distribution system, an exceptionally tiny percentage of people are originators, actually creative, the rest mimic and pander and try to scam their way to some views by copying or ripping off originators (you see this repeating trend represented in everything, eg content farms).

[dragonwriter]

> TikTok isn't a creativity amplification network, it's a mimic network.

Replication with some source of variation (such as even just “people aren't perfect mimics”, but “some people apply some minor modicum of creativity” enhances this) plus selective pressure (such as interesting novelty getting rewarded) is sufficient for it to function as as Darwinian creativity amplification system by way of being principally a mimic network.

[orangeoxidation]

"Everything is a remix"

TikTok being a "mimic network" does not show it's not creative.

Creativity is primarily a product of creation, rather than one of originality and TikTok is, in fact, inspiring to create.

[robocat]

Recognising creativity is also creative. Art is in the eye of the beholder (not necessarily the creator).

Something can be authored that was unintentionally interesting, but amplified by the creative recognition of some weird facet. For example cat videos - the cat isn’t trying to get likes! Edit: or a security camera video where there is zero intent to create, and the art is in the recognition of the clip by everybody.

[adventured]

I suspect that out of a zillion mimic events you will get a small number of truly creative bursts, yes. I think it's very rare though and wouldn't qualify as being widespread creativity or origination. Also those bursts of new/original content coming out of initial copying may primarily come from burgeoning originators that are just being born so to speak, rather than from the mimic group. I doubt the process overall results in an increase in originators.

edit: to the repeat downvoters instantly hitting every one of my comments, those that don't like the fact that I'm pointing out that humans are 99%+ mimics, I'd encourage you to add to the discussion and dissent from what I'm saying. I'd enjoy reading that counter. Everyone isn't a butterfly just waiting to be unleashed into the next da Vinci, that's a fantasy. It makes perfect sense that the majority operate as distributors, mimics, for things that the 0.001% come up with that work effectively. It would be an enormous biological waste of energy for everyone to be so creative, the mimic and distribute what works approach is logical. Humans do it with everything, including learning / copying skills, behaviors, systems, almost anything you can name. For example, there are always a very small number of teachers (as a share of the population) distributing knowledge/skills, and most teachers are also mimics, but they're custodian mimics that use various bullhorns to (ideally) spread what works faster. Teachers are rarely originators, the knowledge is passed down a distribution chain by mimics that serve various functions along the way. That's how a lot of systems in human societies work (politics and religion all work that way).

[willio58]

This reads to me like one of those 90's articles over-simplifying and underestimating the internet. Not that what you're saying is completely wrong, and trust me I'm not saying TikTok == the Internet, but the belittling tone is off-putting.

[adventured]

I'd have to put a lot of effort into walking around the inevitable tone that is given off by calling the majority of people mimics. I know how that would have to come across. I don't think it's worth taking that long of a stroll to reach that outcome, the people that are going to disagree and instantly downvote due to outrage are never going to agree with the mimic premise no matter what I say or how I tone it.

I don't view the premise as bad at all, or negative. It makes sense, it's a very reasonable biological system of replicating/copying what works and passing it along; it's very energy efficient for a species, and historically we've had to conserve energy, our evolution would strongly favor a mimic what works system. As a concept it also doesn't elevate us above other biological systems that operate on this planet, we're not that special; whereas to pretend that everyone can be da Vinci is to falsify what humans are, to pretend every person is a creativity giant in waiting if only they got the right encouragement. It's just more of everyone gets a trophy culture in action.

[ggggtez]

I think you're wrong, but I don't think this should be downvoted.

I think it helps to compare "copy and remix" with "does nothing". Compare "watched 50 difference dances" with "saw 0 dances". When you see it in that light, it would be difficult to argue that some people don't get inspired by seeing new things.

Now, I might argue that the level of creativity added from each additional user is not linear. That the creativity added is vacuous, pointless, 99% mimicry, and doesn't actually move the conversation forward...

But there are those 1% of users who are able to participate in the global conversation and say something new, who otherwise would not be able to participate, that I think it's at least worth acknolwedging.

[analyst74]

"good artists copy; great artists steal"

Even someone as great as Picasso would not have been able to create the masterwork he left us without learning and getting inspirations (aka, steal) from other artists before his time.

If you ever think someone is creating good original art (because shitty original art is easy to create), chances are you are just not familiar with the work they stole from.

[zwieback]

Quite the elitist view! When I watch a few TikTok videos I quickly form an opinion whether something is creative or mere copying, I know it when I see it. Just writing the whole thing off seems insane, statistically speaking.

[OrbitRock]

Maybe all creativity is just mimics who repeat things and add a little bit of variation.

I think the book Steal Like an Artist addresses this.

[cambalache]

Or maybe it isnt, and the great breakthroughs are the result of fantastic imaginative and courageous minds.

[ramoz]

I dont think this is true. Creativity happens when you combine/blend prior knowledge. We don't magically create new information without prior meaning.

TikTok acts likes this and the remix is like a blending/combining prior creativity that leads to continuous new creativity.

[cambalache]

This very easily refuted, then no creativity is possible because who was going to create the "first knowledge"

[RealityVoid]

Your refutations is even more easily refuted. First knowledge is created by observing the world around us. Mimickry of the natural world is all around us, you even see it in animals.

[cambalache]

So you could create the knowledge without imitating others. Try again. The second time maybe will be better. That without entering in the discredited philosophical position of empiricism for epistemology.

[OrbitRock]

Fantastic and courageous minds working from the void?

Or fantastic and courageous minds responding to some cultural or historical material?

(Which would be much in the way a TikToker responds to a meme while adding some of their own spice).

Let’s not get bogged down by the fact that one domain might be perceived as more valuable/respected and the other not so.

What have philosophers ever done post-Socrates except come across the ecosystem of historical philosophers and riff off of that?

[cambalache]

Yes, fantastic and courageous minds. The kind of person we all due our civilization: Newton, Hooke, Darwin,Gauss, Euler,Watts.

[RealityVoid]

I think there is some truth in that those characters were more creative than many other, but they did not create in a void. Your first example, Newton, said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Who am I to contradict Newton? :)

[cambalache]

Arent you the same kid saying in other comment that there is not creativity, just imitation? Take a position and stick to it. BTW you are misinterpreting Newton (on purpose or not). He didnt say he copy them, he was humbly acknowledging there have been giants in science before him.

[wsinks]

A few questions for you, because I think you make a good point about it being a mimic network (where each person puts a slight spin on it).

1. Have you heard of the belief of "Human Design"? That belief / theory / spiritual guide has a similar distribution to what you're talking about. I'm just curious if your thinking was independent to that or if you've ever heard of it. (https://www.jovianarchive.com/Human_Design/Types)

2. How do you define originality? Is it something where "you know it when you see it", or is it something else?

3. Thinking of probabilities, wouldn't it also make sense that the default for people is to be un-original? We only have so many elements and so many places, I have to imagine that people being 'incapable of [doing anything creative or original]' is less a value statement and more just a logical progression of probability.

4. I've also come to a feeling that a person doing something that they've seen before, but do not see right at that very minute, is 'non-internet brain thinking'. We didn't have visual records so prevalent until just recently in humanity's lifetime. Repetition of behavior (lately sometimes called 'holding space for X') is a useful function for social networks, giving validity to someone's creativity.

Again, not trying to invalidate anything you're saying (and I noted your 'cue the outrage' comment, hence why I'm over specifying this too)

Super interesting take on the article, I've been wondering similar things for a while.

[dec0dedab0de]

Sounds like you're talking about the difference between a sourcerer and a wizard in Discworld.

[wilde]

TikTok is powered by “yes, and”, which is a perfectly fine form of creativity.

[boh]

In its basic form, creativity is an act of creation. Whether or not these creations are at the Picasso/Mozart/Proust level of high art, creativity is technically operating in this network. Measuring creativity in the way where more of x produces more of y (more users=more creativity) is of course, not a real analysis. More people produce more content which may or may not be creative in nature (it can be a product review for instance).

[tp3]

In TikTok, it is easy to dismiss the whole project because, well, it's not a huge deal. It's fun. It's easy to take for granted that the entire thing is the work of a single person who is basically a public relations and marketing specialist named TiKTok. This is not a joke. This is a reality that requires every minute of the day to be spent creating an avatar for their fan base of 6.5M.

But TiKTok has only just launched that avatar. TiKTok has created another one. They are still creating the first and are hoping to add another.

And as a result, TikTok has become this strange thing called "the Internet's Most Dangerous Video." For some reason, even people who are a little skeptical have found the world and become so accustomed to the idea of TikTok and their little thing that they can't imagine how this project can kill their brains for some of the crazy shit they're actually watching on it.

[knolax]

> The extreme majority of humans are mimics, they essentially never create or do anything creative or original. They are incapable of that (cue the outrage at such a statement, even though it's true).

Of course people are going to be outraged over the statement. You're playing a semantic game where you came up with your own definition of creativity that excludes what most people do, and then not actually defining it or justifying it. If you used a more common definition of creative you'd have no argument to make.

Novelty isn't the only thing that makes something creative, a string of randomly generated numbers is always novel but wouldn't be considered creative. Creativity requires novelty conveyed through recognizable patterns, which means some amount of mimicry has to be involved.

[psyc]

Every dictionary definition of the word I’m looking at right now includes the words “original”, “originality”, or “not imitated.”

I think the word “prolific” applies to what TikTok facilitates, much more than the word “creative.” And personally I find the amount of word for word and beat for beat mimicry on the app maddening.

[knolax]

> Every dictionary definition of the word I’m looking at right now includes the words “original”, “originality”, or “not imitated.”

Citing dictionary definitions just shifts your argument from one word whose meaning you didn't define to another word whose meaning you haven't defined. Is the Mona Lisa original? It's not the first oil painting, nor the first portrait, nor even the first painting of an Italian noblewoman made in the renaissance style. Yet it's commonly considered to be creative despite being imitative and unoriginal in all those previously mentioned aspects. What definition of original can you then make that simultaneously includes the Mona Lisa, is mutually exclusive with any imitation, and excludes the "majority of humans".

[cambalache]

Good point. Even here in HN is very common from n-th YC me too company, to the "check out my innovative new JS framework/library/tool".

[starfallg]

As a corollary to that, genuine creativity requires a lot more time and effort to appreciate than a 60 second vertical video.

Most of social media is just shallow attention grabbing time sinks. IOW, attention hacks.

[adventured]

I generally agree with that. It's one of the things people loved about TikTok, they got to feel like they were doing something creative or original, producing creative content, without having to invest years into learning how to actually dance. Copy some basic arm motions and movements, repeat it a lot until you memorize it, then record it and publish it. It requires very little thought, and the young crowd that is mostly doing it has a huge surplus of physical energy to put into copying & playing back mentally empty physical movement.