>“The things that agencies should be doing is beyond experimenting with this; they should be calculating now what it means for their business,” Curtis said. “It is a tool humans will use to kickstart creative thinking or to create the base level of something, which they then adapt continuously, or to move more quickly. … It is not an answer to everything, but it does radically shift the economics of a lot of what we do in creativity.”

Translated: "Were going to replace our creative workers with AI tools"

> Zach Kula, group strategy director at BBDO, said the industry should be thinking about this tool less in terms of how it could replace humans and more about the various ways it could revolutionize how creatives do their jobs.

Lol, this guy is either hopelessly naive, or just has no actual idea what businesses are going to do with these tools. Business owners don't really care about how creatives do their job: the end result is all that matters. If owners think they can save money and just use these tools instead of using creative experts, they'll absolutely just give using the tools a try. Worst comes to worst, you can just hire someone else if solely using the tools doesn't pan out.

> “In my mind, it doesn’t appear that many of the people commenting on this have even used the tool,” Kula said. “If they did, it would be obvious it’s not even close to replacing creative thinking. In fact, I’d say it exposes how valuable true creative thinking actually is. It puts the difference between original creative thought and eloquently constructed database information in plain sight.”

I mean again, business owners don't really care about "true creative thought" for the most part. Nowadays, it's all about catchy headlines, clicks and who publishes first.

This article downplays or ignores the actual concerns people have, makes businesses seem more practically ethical than they actually will be, and undersells how disruptive the tech will be once fully matured.