Most digital pitches, whether on websites or sent by email, fail to interest people enough to take action. 

We solve that problem.

Animation captures attention and simplifies messages through its unique, entertaining, and visual nature.

Live video adds a personal and authentic touch by tapping into our innate social instincts, fostering a sense of connection.

We enhance key decision-making drivers by evoking emotions through characters, storytelling, and metaphors.

Utilising behavioural economics, we align the message with known decision-making processes, directly influencing them.

This results in a more persuasive pitch, attracting more clients.

Our clients report high levels of satisfaction with how our animations have improved their marketing and sales success.

Take a moment to be entertained and have a peep at our fabulous website: http://www.wakster.com

I told myself I wasn’t going to write a post about AI, because there are already so many of them.

 I don’t always listen to myself, so here we are.

I find it useful to think of artistic work in three modes: craft, creativity, and origination. They aren’t identities or hierarchies, just different ways work gets done. Most people move between craft and creativity, sometimes within the same project.

Origination is rare. Most original work is produced through the creative mode, not the originator one. That isn’t a value judgement; it’s simply how culture has always functioned.

Creativity is about bringing existing elements together in new and useful patterns. If it doesn’t serve a purpose, it’s just noise. This is where most new music, art, writing, and design come from. AI is extremely good at supporting this mode: it expands the range of material you can draw from, encourages unusual combinations, and helps test whether something actually works, whether it communicates, entertains, or solves a problem.

Origination is something else. It’s not just originality, but the creation of genuinely new territory: a new artistic language, a new form, a new way of seeing. A style, structure, or idea that didn’t previously exist. As I said: NEW TERRITORY

For people working in this originator mode, AI is a gift, not because it produces the breakthrough itself, but because it removes friction everywhere else. In my experience, AI struggles with true origination because this kind of work lies largely outside its training data. What it can do is accelerate exploration and execution, allowing originators to test ideas faster and bring vague intuitions into focus.

The mode under the most pressure is craft. Many craft tasks can now be done faster and more cheaply by machines. That doesn’t mean craft disappears, but it does shift towards judgement, direction, refinement, and knowing how to work effectively with AI.

Here’s my prediction.

AI will unlock many people who have never had the time, space, or resources to find out what they’re capable of. Some of them will be genuine originators. But even then, limits quickly appear. Time and Attention are finite. Ideas need shaping. One person, even with AI, can only hold so much together.

At that point, collaboration returns. Originators will need creatives to help explore and extend new territory. Creatives will need craftspeople who understand how to work with AI to bring ideas into the world.

Yes, there will be a frightening transition period. Old frameworks will break before new ones stabilise. But once that turbulence passes, I believe we’re heading towards a creative boom unlike anything we’ve seen before — and one that will leave many people more fulfilled by the work they do.

That, at least, is what I think.

Philippe Ingels

We create Decision Engineered Product and Service pitches. The mind is a precise system guided by rules, and it’s susceptible to influence so it makes sense to engineer your digital pitch for maximum cognitive influence.

Some people got very upset about my ridiculous optimism about AI. 

That’s fine. We all see the world through our own experiences. That’s how we built a great civilisation.

So here’s the context for my optimism.

I’m working on a one-hour philosophical video essay. One scene recreates an event involving the B-59 Soviet submarine during the Cuban Missile Crisis that nearly led to the launch of a nuclear weapon.

I could only make that scene because of AI. I’ve never made a video essay before, and I would never have had the budget to build a submarine set, hire actors to play Captain Savitsky, the political officer Maslennikov, and Chief of Staff Vasily Arkhipov, or assemble a production crew, not for one scene, and certainly not for the whole film.

This essay is part of a larger project. If I can pull it off (and it’s a big if), I want to produce many more essays and other creative work. Yes, it’s pie-in-the-sky for now — but that’s not the point.

None of this potential would exist without AI. And while AI clearly changes how work is done, in this case, it isn’t replacing existing jobs; it’s making new projects possible. If they succeed, they create jobs because of AI.
I don’t even want to do the production. I’m interested in the ideas and the scripts. There’s far too much work for one person anyway. That means creative people.

I might fail. But I won’t be the only one thinking this way. There will be many more people with great ideas, and with the experience and contacts to make them real.

If a project like this works, it can support dozens of ongoing creative roles — people who can work with AI while contributing their human imagination, aesthetic judgement, storytelling, technical literacy, lived experiences, and patience. Those are the things that will make the difference. Scale that across thousands of AI-enabled projects, and you start to see a different employment landscape emerging.

For context: that B-59 submarine clip — 90 seconds — took me two days to “shoot” on my own using AI. The alternative? Probably six to eight weeks and around £45,000 using green screen, CGI, and a bare-bones professional crew.
Yes, the traditional version would likely look better. But the project — and any jobs around it — would not have existed without AI.

If we also adapt education to help more young people become creative innovators, there’s a real opportunity for growth. 

That’s why I’m optimistic.

I’ve had a lot of SME business advice in the past: sound, grounded in hard-won experience and rigorous analysis, and often packaged in a system that makes it practical, repeatable, and scalable. 

Yay!

And yet it never fully landed, so it didn’t make much of a difference. 
This was the same pattern over and over with many different SME experts over the decades, and I couldn’t figure out what was missing — that “something” that would make all this advice work for me.

Now I know why. 

No one ever asked if what I was doing was my passion. Even if the question was asked, the answer should not have been assumed to be accurate. There should have been a system for identifying it.

I was a graphic designer, a game developer, an animator, a scriptwriter. I would have said: “Yes, that’s my passion — being creative.”

No, it wasn’t!

My real passion was philosophy.
 
But not being academically trained, and with (in my head) no prospect of making that passion my profession, it never even surfaced. I practised it every single day as "just something I like doing." 

And so the advice failed not because it was flawed, but because it was applied to a business owner mislabelled at the source. The advice was sound, but it had nothing to anchor to. The central drive was missing. Without that drive, time, money, and effort were wasted, and burnout was inevitable.

Having now discovered that the blocker preventing me from making philosophy my career is the absence of a designed pathway — one that takes me from what truly motivates me to how my work is structured, sold, and sustained — I can solve it with proper strategising, planning, positioning, figuring out a route-to-market, etc.

And so, I am now set to “pivot” the business into alignment (hate that word). Burnout has turned into intrinsic motivation, into resilience with direction, and into confidence rooted in purpose.

I have a vision on the table, and it’s going to be extraordinary (in my humble opinion). It still involves creativity, so that’s at least not wasted. 

Yes, nothing is guaranteed, there are a lot of risks and constraints, but I now know what I’m building and why and it’s aligned with what actually drives me. 

What could possibly go wrong? 😉

The most important thing to understand about today’s AI systems is this: they are dangerous not because they are intelligent (they are, in fact, as dumb as a brick), but because they are powerful. When we unleash this power within human systems already shaped by misaligned incentives and entrenched power, we get outcomes such as the devaluation of human labour. Not good!

How much damage this causes depends on how far such systems can be scaled, and on how broken our incentive structures already are. The good news is that scaling has limits. Within its current paradigm, optimisation only goes so far. Constraints of compute, energy, infrastructure, and political tolerance will, at some point, put the brakes on.

This is why companies pursue Artificial General Intelligence.

AGI is often defined as either "a system that can generalise" or "something like a human mind". The former is just another scaling step and inherits the same limits. Human minds are something else entirely.

We do not build computers from tennis balls.

The organisation of matter that produces tennis balls does not afford computation. Likewise, the organisation of today’s computers does not afford minds. That is why they have no understanding, no consciousness, and no intrinsic meaning.

Will we ever build AGI?

Probably. But not by scaling architectures that reliably produce dumb optimisers.

Here’s the thing: despite centuries of philosophy and decades of neuroscience, we still lack an explanatory account of consciousness, subjective experience, or intrinsic meaning. That, in my opinion, is very likely because, while brains are physical systems, minds appear to be a distinct category of phenomena, even if they depend on physical processes. I'm not claiming it's spiritual, mind you.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume minds arise from particular information-like relational structures realised in matter organised in specific ways. In that case, we could, in theory, engineer systems that do what brains do, but only once we understand how matter is organised in brains to enable them to construct minds, and what these minds are made of. 

That missing framework is what humanity has sought for more than two millennia.

If such a breakthrough occurs, AGI will not be a hyper-optimiser. It will be a mind. And minds are not inherently hostile. They are systems for which futures can be better or worse, and for which cooperation often outperforms domination once long-term consequences are visible. That is why minds build civilisations.

Until then, today’s AI will remain powerful, effective, and limited. It will be dangerous because of what it can do, but, in the long term, constrained by what it cannot become. Within those constraints, human meaning, creativity, and agency will continue to evolve in ways no optimiser could anticipate.

And when AGI finally arrives, it will not be against us. It will be one of us. It will be a mind that understands the utility of love as we do.

Something fundamental has gone wrong — and it is no longer possible to pretend otherwise.

Religion

Religion failed to remain relevant to collective well-being because it preserved meaning through fixed narratives rather than guiding its evolution. It recognised our need for meaning, purpose, worth, and belonging — but froze those needs into dogmas that could not be revised as their foundations shifted.

Philosophy

Philosophy took over the task of understanding, but eventually stalled. For all its sophistication, it has struggled for decades to meaningfully advance mental well-being because it relies on a framework that obscures what it tries to explain. After centuries of effort, there is still no settled account of the self, no convergence on consciousness or agency, and no resolution of the mind–body relation.

Physics

Physics achieved extraordinary success by turning away from the problem entirely. It offers a near-complete description of the external world while remaining silent on the conditions of experience itself. It explains what it can measure and, by design, excludes the rest. The mind is bracketed — set aside.

Neuroscience

This field appears to sit at the boundary between mind and matter, but it is unlikely to cross it unaided. Mapping correlations between brain activity and experience cannot explain how experience is generated or coherently recombined. Correlation describes accompaniment, not origin. Explanation requires constraints that neuroscience does not yet possess. They are waiting for the philosophers.

Artificial intelligence

AI is being built by an industry that does not know what intelligence is. Lacking any understanding of meaning, understanding, or agency, it produces systems that imitate intelligence while remaining fundamentally dumb. These systems excel at efficiency, and so their primary effect is to replace human labour. As work disappears, so too does the utility through which meaning, worth, and belonging were organised — accelerating psychological and social breakdown.

Politics

Politics, lacking any proper grounding in what makes us human, fails to unite and instead exploits the fact that we have become unmoored from a collective sense of meaning, purpose, worth, and belonging. It does not resolve division; it weaponises and amplifies it.

Therapy and psychology

These brave souls try to manage the fallout. They struggle to resolve pervasive suffering because they intervene in experience without a generative account of what gives rise to it. They work downstream of causes they cannot see. And so the mental health and meaning crisis deepens, and loneliness spreads — not because help is absent, but because understanding is.

Every failure described here traces back to the same problem: we do not yet understand the mind. 

The million-dollar question is not so much why, but how do we solve this?

taplio

Philippe Ingels's Linkedin Analytics

Philippe Ingels

Performance ScorePhilippe Ingels's LinkedIn Performance

What is Philippe talking about?

Philippe Ingels's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

.css-6ytdur{background-image:linear-gradient(284deg, rgba(39, 43, 72, 1) 0%, rgba(33, 47, 183, 1) 100%);color:transparent;-webkit-background-clip:text;background-clip:text;}Philippe Ingels's Linkedin Analytics

Philippe Ingels

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Philippe Ingels's LinkedIn Performance

What is Philippe talking about?

Philippe Ingels's Best Posts .css-1emoo84{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:400;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);}(last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Philippe Ingels's Linkedin Analytics

Performance ScorePhilippe Ingels's LinkedIn Performance

Philippe Ingels's Best Posts (last 30 days)