I stepped out early morning and wandered into a coffee shop beneath the library. I had to wait an hour before the library opened. ☕ Sitting absentmindedly on a stool by the window with my coffee order placed, I watched a staff member start organizing the display case by the door.
She began from the top shelf, not just aligning rows but engaging in a major overhaul—unboxing new items and rearranging product lines. Whether it was her own method or an in-store algorithm, she moved with confidence and speed. 📦 She first examined the new goods and existing items, roughly grouping them by type and color. Once this was done, she moved on to the finer details. Yet, she seemed dissatisfied at points, stepping back to assess the whole display case before diving back in to adjust the arrangement. And then, she refined the details once more.
I became so captivated by this mesmerizing spectacle of goods rearrangement that I forgot I was waiting for my coffee. ☕ Her process was a blend of tasks, yet her movements—except when pondering changes to prototypes—flowed like water, each task transitioning smoothly, like a well-composed song. With a satisfied glance at the finished display, she grabbed the box of discarded items and disappeared swiftly. 🚶♀️
Standardizing a manual for tidying up every store and display is inevitable. Following it to the letter might prevent issues, but it won’t create value. Yesterday merely replicates into today, and today into tomorrow. To shine in the execution phase, you need the sense to tailor the manual to the current situation—something not everyone can do.
Last year, I came across a paper titled ‘A Philosophical Reflection on Art, Technology, and Imagination’ in Beomhan Philosophy. It offered a glimpse into current artists’ concerns about AI-driven creativity. The author distinguishes AI art from human art, concluding critically that even if the outcome (whether it pleases people or sells) is the same, it isn’t art, and AI isn’t an artist. In reality, AI-generated art algorithms are evolving rapidly, increasingly resembling human creativity through various innovative attempts. While I don’t agree with every proof in the paper, I understand the frustration, the sense of urgency, or concern behind its theme. AI’s invasion into the art world presents a serious practical issue for those involved (since it affects livelihoods) and simultaneously challenges the value of human existence. 🎨
Even setting aside the heavy topic of artistic creation, the difference between machines and humans is a common theme in general business industries. Personally, the beauty of human task execution lies in the ability to check the big picture midway and decide or pivot without following every step. Sure, machines define and execute the most efficient process from the outset with available input data. But the way it unfolds is like watching donuts roll off a conveyor belt—not exactly beautiful. In contrast, the display case rearrangement I witnessed today was so captivating I couldn’t take my eyes off it. 🌟
Of course, she was beautiful while organizing too. 💁♀️
Leave a Reply