In the coming decade and beyond, neural networks are expected to automate many routine roles, from accounting and legal work to writing, proofreading, design, programming, retail, and delivery. Yet there are domains where human insight remains unmatched. Even the most advanced neural networks cannot replicate the ability to craft unconventional solutions and demonstrate genuine empathy. This distinction matters in fields such as architecture, journalism, education, psychology, and law. These insights come from a fintech industry expert who leads international DeFi and FinTech initiatives, serves on association boards, and participates in industry awards. The perspective reflects a practical view on AI capabilities and human creativity.
The expert notes that the strength of artificial intelligence lies in its capacity to analyze available options and select the best course of action. When a problem demands something truly new that has never been tried before, the neural network may hesitate because such nonstandard solutions are not stored in its training memory.
AI will not outpace real creators in roles that demand originality. It can help assemble a news feed, but it cannot replace a brilliant interviewer who can engage even the most reticent reporter. It can design a perfect building in any style, yet it cannot develop its own architectural voice. Therefore, creators have little reason to fear AI competition in the near term.
The fields that AI will never fully replace are those requiring empathy and emotional intelligence. This does not negate the potential of AI in education, where it can play a supportive role.
Educators can leverage artificial intelligence to explain topics clearly, tailor explanations to a student’s knowledge level, select relatable examples, and even adapt to the learner’s mood. But AI cannot comfort a frightened beginning student, celebrate a small victory with children, or teach them to be friends and to value one another. In pedagogy, neural networks serve as capable helpers, not replacements for teachers.
The expert also notes that AI cannot replace psychologists, social workers, and other professionals responsible for both the comfort and the emotional climate of those they serve.
Another domain where AI struggles due to lacking empathy is sales. While robots may eventually handle many retail tasks, convincing a person looking for gear for a fishing trip to buy a jeep requires psychology and deep human connection, a skill set that machines have yet to master. This view aligns with the Assessment by an award jury member in the field of AI-driven creativity.
Likewise, in the realm of legal studies, AI can draft contracts—standard or tailored to parameters provided. Yet it cannot deliver a courtroom speech that resonates with juries and judges alike in the near future.
Artificial intelligence may perform impeccably on routine tasks, but it remains a tool rather than a replacement for human creativity. It can act as a valuable assistant across professions, freeing people from repetitive tasks and allowing more room for original work and personal expression.
Recent discussions in the field mention a publication in Russia describing a cyberpunk-inspired book co-authored with a neural network, illustrating how AI collaboration can yield novel creative outputs.