{"id":18292,"date":"2023-10-26T08:32:20","date_gmt":"2023-10-26T08:32:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/?p=18292"},"modified":"2023-10-26T08:32:25","modified_gmt":"2023-10-26T08:32:25","slug":"why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete","title":{"rendered":"Why AI Can’t Make Human Creativity Obsolete"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By the year 2000 people worried that professional chess was doomed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who would prefer inferior human games when IBM’s Deep Blue could beat then-world champion Garry Kasparov? Machines would get better and better: if they could already outmatch the best humans, what was the point? We would surely just sit there, in awe, admiring chess-playing machines transcend beyond comprehension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It didn\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Machines got better, true, but humans kept playing. And we kept watching other humans play. Perhaps it was because chess engines like Deep Blue, or its modern version, Stockfish, are too inhuman. They are strong players but cold and calculative. The spark of genius can\u2019t be codified, which results in a lack of insight and inventiveness. That\u2019s a turnoff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Circa 2020. This time was different\u2014surely no one will ever watch another human chess match now that AIs play not just better than the best humans but the likes of AlphaZero do it in an uncannily similar creative way. As the NYT put it<\/a>, AlphaZero \u201cplayed \u2026 intuitively and beautifully, with a romantic, attacking style.\u201d What\u2019s left for humans to offer?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But it didn\u2019t happen either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We still enjoy watching humans play chess against humans just as much or more than before. If anything, AI has made us better players overall.Subscribe<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the evidence, I wonder where the fear that AI will make human creativity obsolete comes from. Why do we think that once AI learns to write better than Shakespeare and Tolstoy, compose better than Mozart and Beethoven, or paint better than Picasso and da Vinci, it will be the end of human creativity? Even now, as I argue to counter that notion, I can\u2019t help but feel a sting of fear for a loss that seems certain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But that kind of fear appears irrational when the only category where AI has undoubtedly surpassed humans forever points to the contrary: we still enjoy (and consume) the way humans play chess. Actually, \u201cchess is booming<\/a>.\u201d There are reasons, like increased online competition, that could partially explain the trend, but isn\u2019t it weird regardless? Now that humans are, for the first time in history, not the best chess players, we pay more<\/em> attention <\/em>to the game. Magnus Carlsen, arguably the best human chess player in history, can only dream of beating Stockfish or AlphaZero yet we love seeing him play\u2014we love seeing him win despite knowing that better chess<\/em> is possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the paradox of AI-driven obsolescence of human creativity, for lack of a better name. Looking ahead it seems inevitable and painful. In retrospect it\u2019s non-existent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One explanation is that we like imperfection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AI may not be foolproof (yet) but it lives in an always-optimizing state that drives it toward a kind of flawlessness\u2014too alien, too artificial\u2014out of reach for us always-flawed humans. And we happen to like flawed humans do stuff: Carlsen and Kasparov, however brilliant, still make mistakes, yet we rather see them play one another than face AlphaZero. We like to see them play well, and play not-so-well, and fail and recover and fight and earn a hard win\u2014that\u2019s attractive; that creates thrill and suspense and expectation for what will happen next.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When anything is possible our interest remains intact. We don\u2019t seek perfection, but being surprised\u2014perfection doesn\u2019t have room for surprises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How does this transfer to writing and artistry, only recently threatened by ChatGPT and Midjourney? I\u2019d say in exactly the same way, at least for the writing and painting whose goal is to entertain us, surprise us, and keep us engaged. (There\u2019s creative work whose purpose is none of that, e.g. when the primary goal is to obtain monetary value from the output. That\u2019s a different problem that deserves adequate attention.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A personal essay written by a fellow living human with human experiences, human emotions, human drives and dreams and hopes pulls us more than anything qualified as perfectly written\u2014it\u2019s not the pristine paragraph but the one that resonates with us best that makes us want to read on. The same goes for painting and drawing. As the quote attributed to Leonardo da Vinci goes, \u201cArt is never finished, only abandoned.\u201d You can\u2019t edit an artwork to perfection. Contrary to what people may intuitively think, the sweet spot of creativity lies between greatness and perfection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I give a fair amount of credibility to this explanation but I don\u2019t think it\u2019s enough. For instance, watching the AI-simulated Magnus Carlsen bot<\/a> play is nowhere near as exciting or enjoyable as watching the real Carlsen play despite both playing, by definition, similarly \u201cimperfect\u201d chess.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s another solution to the paradox that solves this shortcoming. I confess that I personally prefer this one because it\u2019s more comprehensive and more poetic, it radiates a powerful optimism, and, above all, because it\u2019s as simple as it gets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Humans like humans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s it. It is not human imperfection that captures our attention, but humans, plain and simple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I watch videos of world-class athletes performing incredible feats that I can hardly distinguish from perfection\u2014and I like it. I read essays written by fantastic authors that I can only describe as perfect since there\u2019s nothing I could add or suggest to improve them\u2014and I like them. I watch Carlsen display a chess mastery I wish I understood, which to me is undifferentiable from watching AlphaZero play\u2014and I like it more<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But then we\u2019re left with another question: why do we like it a lot more when humans do things well than when AIs do those things better<\/em>? I believe the answer lies in the delicate balance between similarities and contrasts shared by every member of the human family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To continue with the chess example, when I watch Carlsen play I unconsciously know he\u2019s subject to the human condition, just as I am, and yet he\u2019s beautifully breaking my notions of what\u2019s possible for a human to do. In a way, I deeply identify with him as my peer and, at the same time, he\u2019s way above me in this particular thing that I enjoy watching him do. That doesn\u2019t happen with AlphaZero. It\u2019s that discrepancy between Carlsen and me, grounded on an irreplaceable familiarity, that makes it always interesting and, at times, extremely exciting and surprising.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s another good example that reveals a similar insight from a different perspective. The cover image you see above, which went viral this week on Twitter<\/a>, was made with Stable Diffusion. There\u2019s some degree of human ingenuity in finding the right prompt but not in the art itself. People loved it at first\u2014the play of objects with shapes and shadows is captivating\u2014but once they realized it was AI art, they didn\u2019t hesitate to attack the piece they claimed to love moments earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part of the reason is traditional artists\u2019 pervasive contempt for anything coming out of an AI model, but I think that doesn\u2019t explain it fully. The main reason why people dismissed a nice artwork for the sole reason of being made by AI is the same reason that explains why I like watching Carlsen play chess more than watching AlphaZero.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Humans and AIs are intrinsically subjected to different rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unconstrained from human limitations, AIs are like amoebae, capable of taking any shape in our imagination. That\u2019s why we can fantasize about them becoming superintelligent and why we can easily see them surpassing us in every measurable category. We rightly assume they achieve superb feats by harnessing their boundless nature, not by effort, hard work, or cultivated talent as humans do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s unsurprising we don\u2019t value what they can do by the same metric that we value what we can, even when they do it better in the absolute sense. We will always prefer to watch humans do stuff and achieve feats because they are bound by the same rules we are\u2014and it\u2019s only from that shared basis that they can become great and admirable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, this same principle applies to entities other than AIs, like animals. We don\u2019t compare Usain Bolt with cheetahs or Michael Phelps with dolphins\u2014we know they play under different rules. We like watching Bolt win the 100 meters and Phelps earn a handful of gold medals with performances that would be laughable for many animals. Just as we like watching Carlsen win the world chess championship with unacceptable moves by AlphaZero standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The anthropological distance between humans and AIs breaks the spell otherwise intact of their magnificent ability. Fear for human creativity is unwarranted because we don\u2019t really like perfection for the sake of perfection, as we reasonably but mistakenly believe. We prefer to witness, appreciate, and enjoy the creations and performances of our fellow human beings when they\u2019re imperfect just as much as when they appear to be perfect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AI can\u2019t make humans obsolete because humans like humans too much.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By definition, AI can\u2019t compete with that and never will.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By the year 2000 people worried that professional chess was doomed. Who would prefer inferior human games when IBM’s Deep Blue could beat then-world champion Garry Kasparov? Machines would get better and better: if they could already outmatch the best humans, what was the point? We would surely just sit there, in awe, admiring chess-playing<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2631,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"topics":[3,14,15,149,28,36,57,110,122],"class_list":{"0":"post-18292","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-uncategorized","7":"topics-accessibility","8":"topics-artificial-intelligence","9":"topics-augmented-reality","10":"topics-behavioral-science","11":"topics-design","12":"topics-empathy","13":"topics-interaction-design","14":"topics-technology","15":"topics-ux-magazine","16":"entry"},"yoast_head":"\nWhy AI Can't Make Human Creativity Obsolete - UX Magazine<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Recent history gives us a powerful and definitive reason for hope\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Why AI Can't Make Human Creativity Obsolete\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Recent history gives us a powerful and definitive reason for hope\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"UX Magazine\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/uxmag\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-10-26T08:32:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-10-26T08:32:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/Default_LeadBanner.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1382\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"755\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Alberto Romero\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@uxmag\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@uxmag\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Alberto Romero\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Alberto Romero\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4cb164d291d73f2d45ca7e436409c0ae\"},\"headline\":\"Why AI Can’t Make Human Creativity Obsolete\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-10-26T08:32:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-10-26T08:32:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete\"},\"wordCount\":1546,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#organization\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete\",\"name\":\"Why AI Can't Make Human Creativity Obsolete - UX Magazine\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-10-26T08:32:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-10-26T08:32:25+00:00\",\"description\":\"Recent history gives us a powerful and definitive reason for hope\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Artificial Intelligence\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/topics\/artificial-intelligence\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Why AI Can’t Make Human Creativity Obsolete\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/\",\"name\":\"UX Magazine\",\"description\":\"UX Magazine is a central, one-stop resource for everything related to user experience. We provide a steady stream of current, informative, and credible information about UX and related fields to enhance the professional and creative lives of UX practitioners and those exploring the field. Our content is driven and created by an impressive roster of experienced professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"UX Magazine\",\"alternateName\":\"uxmag\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/UX-Magazine-logo-2.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/UX-Magazine-logo-2.png\",\"width\":2440,\"height\":428,\"caption\":\"UX Magazine\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/uxmag\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/uxmag\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/ux-magazine\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4cb164d291d73f2d45ca7e436409c0ae\",\"name\":\"Alberto Romero\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/contributors\/alberto-romero\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Why AI Can't Make Human Creativity Obsolete - UX Magazine","description":"Recent history gives us a powerful and definitive reason for hope","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Why AI Can't Make Human Creativity Obsolete","og_description":"Recent history gives us a powerful and definitive reason for hope","og_url":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete","og_site_name":"UX Magazine","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/uxmag","article_published_time":"2023-10-26T08:32:20+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-10-26T08:32:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1382,"height":755,"url":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/Default_LeadBanner.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Alberto Romero","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@uxmag","twitter_site":"@uxmag","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Alberto Romero","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete"},"author":{"name":"Alberto Romero","@id":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4cb164d291d73f2d45ca7e436409c0ae"},"headline":"Why AI Can’t Make Human Creativity Obsolete","datePublished":"2023-10-26T08:32:20+00:00","dateModified":"2023-10-26T08:32:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete"},"wordCount":1546,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#organization"},"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete","url":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete","name":"Why AI Can't Make Human Creativity Obsolete - UX Magazine","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-10-26T08:32:20+00:00","dateModified":"2023-10-26T08:32:25+00:00","description":"Recent history gives us a powerful and definitive reason for hope","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/articles\/why-ai-cant-make-human-creativity-obsolete#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Artificial Intelligence","item":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/topics\/artificial-intelligence"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Why AI Can’t Make Human Creativity Obsolete"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/","name":"UX Magazine","description":"UX Magazine is a central, one-stop resource for everything related to user experience. We provide a steady stream of current, informative, and credible information about UX and related fields to enhance the professional and creative lives of UX practitioners and those exploring the field. Our content is driven and created by an impressive roster of experienced professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#organization","name":"UX Magazine","alternateName":"uxmag","url":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/UX-Magazine-logo-2.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/UX-Magazine-logo-2.png","width":2440,"height":428,"caption":"UX Magazine"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/uxmag","https:\/\/x.com\/uxmag","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/ux-magazine\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4cb164d291d73f2d45ca7e436409c0ae","name":"Alberto Romero","url":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/contributors\/alberto-romero"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18292","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2631"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18292"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18292\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18292"},{"taxonomy":"topics","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topics?post=18292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}