Slow AI: Why Rushing to Solutions Kills Creativity

You are currently viewing Slow AI: Why Rushing to Solutions Kills Creativity

Executive Summary

AI saves time. But what do we do with that freed time? Dr Vlad Glaveanu, founder of Possibility Studies, warns that our “go go go society” risks filling saved time with more tasks rather than allowing the incubation that genuine creativity requires. His concept of “slow AI”—developed with colleague Ron Beghetto—challenges the assumption that faster is always better.

Core insights:

  • AI is a “maximiser of possibilities”—input a query and receive multiple options instantly
  • Slow AI challenges the rush to solutions: creativity research shows waiting and incubation drive better outcomes
  • Possibility bots ask more questions than they give answers, slowing the rush to closure
  • The time paradox: AI frees time, but we risk filling it with more tasks rather than reflection
  • Context matters: an AI agent booking business travel serves efficiency; the same technology planning a family holiday strips away the discussions and disputes that make planning meaningful
  • We’ve struggled with work-life balance since the industrial revolution—AI risks pushing us over the edge before we course-correct

AI as a Maximiser of Possibilities

AI generates options at remarkable speed. Input a query and receive six ideas instantly. Would you like to follow through on any of them?

“AI is a maximiser of possibilities,” Vlad observes. “Now I know people are critical about how some of them are very predictable, some of them are wrong, some of them are hallucinated—absolutely. But still, when you input something into AI, it’s going to be like, here are six ideas connected to that.”

This capability creates genuine value. But it also creates problems.

The Case for Slow AI

Vlad and colleague Ron Beghetto from Arizona State University advocate for “slow AI”—a concept drawing on the broader slow movement that has influenced food, travel, and other domains.

“From a creativity and possibility perspective, it’s interesting that we should not jump to solutions that quickly,” Vlad explains. “A lot of creativity work, innovation work shows that actually it’s the waiting and the incubation that makes things grow and take a different turn.”

We can have “easy creativity” if we want it. But should we?

Ron Beghetto has developed chatbots that embody this principle—possibility bots that ask more questions than they give answers. Rather than rushing to closure, they slow the process down and deepen exploration.

“So that’s one way of using AI still, with that in mind.”

The Time Paradox: What Do We Do Next?

The second issue cuts deeper. AI saves time. But what happens to that freed capacity?

“I noticed that in my own work,” Vlad reflects. “You occasionally use AI, and you save time. All of a sudden, something you would have done in two days materialises, and you edit it, and then—what do you do next?”

This question matters profoundly. “It goes back to the job to be done, the detours we take as humans. I’m afraid that in our go go go society, we’re going to fill that time with more tasks instead of acknowledging—you know, we’ve been challenged as humanity with work-life balance for a long time, since the industrial revolution or before.”

The worry? “AI is actually going to push us over the edge before we come back. Because it’s freeing time, potentially, to use more AI to do more things.”

Context Determines Value

Mark Blackwell illustrates the context dependency with a travel example.

Consider a busy executive who no longer has a secretary and needs to book flights to Paris, then New York, then Mexico. An AI agent handles this tedious task efficiently. Clear benefit.

Now consider a different context: a family planning its holiday. “The whole planning of the vacation—the discussion and the disputes and the different perspectives—is part of the fun of having a family vacation. And you risk taking that away.”

Same technology. Different contexts. Radically different value.

“It echoes exactly what you’re saying about slow AI,” Mark observes.

Knowing when to use AI—and when to preserve the human process—may become the essential judgement call of the coming decades.

About the Speakers

Dr Vlad Glaveanu is Professor of Psychology at Dublin City University and Adjunct Professor at the University of Bergen’s Centre for Science and Learning and Technology. He founded the Possibility Studies Network and edits the Journal of Possibility Studies and Society. His books include Wonder: The Extraordinary Power of an Ordinary Experience and Creativity: A Very Short Introduction.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vlad-glaveanu-82235439/

Mark Blackwell is founder of Arkaro, specialising in change management, innovation, and commercial excellence for the agriculture, food, and chemicals industries. Arkaro’s collaborative “do it with you” approach works through four steps: Understand, Co-create, Enable, Sustain. We don’t just coach—we get on the pitch with you.

Is AI Accelerating Your Organisation—Or Just Making It Busier?

AI promises efficiency. But efficiency without purpose creates busyness, not progress. Understanding when to accelerate and when to slow down—when AI serves genuine needs and when it strips away meaningful human processes—requires judgement that technology cannot provide.

At Arkaro, we help organisations integrate AI thoughtfully, preserving the human elements that drive innovation whilst leveraging technology appropriately.

Contact Mark Blackwell: mark@arkaro.com

Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/markrblackwell/

We work with organisations in agriculture, food and chemicals to build innovation capability that balances speed with wisdom. We don’t just coach—we get on the pitch with you.

Related Reading from Arkaro

On AI & Human Collaboration:

On Innovation & Creativity:

External Resources & Further Reading

Stay connected: Subscribe to Arkaro Insights newsletter for regular perspectives on innovation, AI adoption, and building adaptive organisations in complex industries.