Innovation is universally recognised as critical to drive prosperity in modern knowledge- based economies and societies. It will be essential to address and solve the rising tide of complex problems such as in health, sustainability, inequity, social disconnection and the changing world order.

Innovation thrives where ideas, information and knowledge flow freely with opportunities for knowledge exchange, collaboration and the willingness to take risks and accept failures. These characteristics underpin successful innovation ecosystems with networks, formal and informal at their core. Networks enable connections across disciplines, across different organisations and between individuals, facilitating the sharing of knowledge and the sourcing of new ideas. They prompt new thinking with the potential to inspire and potentially drive innovation. This zeitgeist [1] is a vital component for the success of knowledge-based innovation ecosystems.

Given the fact that modern digital connectivity is now central to our modern lives and connects us across the globe with many and different individuals, this might suggest that we are in an age of free-flowing knowledge with unprecedented opportunity for creativity, new discoveries and the emergence of significant innovations.

However, as a recent book by David Cleevely of the University of Cambridge points out [2] the manner in which our digital online tools operate may be the very factor that constrains the likelihood of innovation and may actually drive the very opposite outcome with a stifling of random connectivity, a reduction in chance encounters with unexpected knowledge and information and become the medium which kills the spark needed for innovation.

Cleevely’s book on Serendipity presents the harsh reality of our ever-increasing dependence on tools such as search engines which no longer index information like the encyclopaedias of the past but rank information, filter it and prioritise what their algorithms assess to be most relevant, most popular and most profitable. He notes that this will stifle the “serendipitous” coming together of chance discoveries and random insights. Social media feeds and music selections also reinforce existing interests rather than introducing us to unexpected ideas or experiences outside of our “bubbles”.

The same challenge applies in AI-powered academic tools which assist academics to find relevant research papers more efficiently as this results in the risk of a narrowing of researchers’ knowledge of any field as like search engines they are driven by efficiency and researcher’s past selections by quoting “most cited” or “most relevant”, not supplying variety or new-field thinking in research.

Cleevley, notes that “the major risk here is not only that individuals become limited in their information but that entire fields of knowledge and innovation systems become self- referential” (p167).

He notes clearly that at the heart of this lies a tension between exploration and optimization, leading to a knowledge-environment that is increasingly pre-filtered and leaving less space for surprise, curiosity and intellectual questioning. His view is clearly that the shift we are witnessing now does not expand our intellectual horizons but narrows them to see more of what we already know and less of what might make us ponder and challenge our current assumptions. This could drive monolithic thinking and the moment of acceptance rather than self-reflection and questioning of alternatives.

“In a world of increasing complexity and rapid change this rigidity represents a significant vulnerability.” (p167)

The rapid implementation of AI tools such as the recent move from Google’s AI Overview to AI Mode which can answer complex questions for users with no provision of potential links that we might search and explore will add to this risk of reducing our curiosity in the name of efficiency. In a recent BBC interview [3] the discussion likened this development to being fed “ultra-processed food” with users being “spoon-fed the obvious” and disregarding the unexpected and non-obvious therefore stifling curiosity.

Even when we are physically together our digital habits can undermine the serendipity that innovators have often awarded to post-meeting coffee machine gatherings. He asks how many of us walk between meetings with our eyes fixed on our phones causing us to miss a chance encounter with a colleague, miss overhearing a conversation that might spark a new thought in our minds or prevent our minds from feeling free to have random reflections? The fact that our minds are in the control of our machines could suggest that we may be inclined to be subject to what our digital programmes want us to think rather than thinking and acting in our own interests.

The history of innovation being sparked by random chance events or encounters is significant and while we may feel that the “hyper-connectivity” of our digital communication systems creates “super-engagement” it may, in reality, be narrowing our experiential bandwidth.

As we become increasingly absorbed into this world with knowledge at our fingertips – Cleevely challenges us to be “mindful” of the other aspects which have shaped our societies over time – human interactions, chance encounters and adaptive thinking.

In a world facing a multitude of complex problems from climate change, social inequity, militarism and authoritarianism we need all aspects that have in the past driven creative thinking, insight, connectivity, collaboration and innovation to be engaged to help us meet such challenges.

The question we need to ask is whether the current rapid technological advances and the emerging dominance of AI can be a factor for good or a factor for the stifling of innovative thinking, undermining the very capabilities we most need for innovation now and in the future?

Notes

^[1] zeitgeist – the defining spirit or mood of a particular place as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time.

^[2] Cleevely, D. (2025), Serendipity: It Doesn’t Happen by Accident. C&P, UK.

^[3] BBC Radio4 Today Programme 29.07.2025 Ian Leslie (author of Curious) and James Marriott (Times Columnist).