AI is changing how we write, design, create, and publish. But just because we can use AI doesn’t necessarily mean we should use it for everything.
For creatives, the conversation around artificial intelligence has become increasingly polarised.
On one side, some people see AI as a powerful tool that can remove barriers, accelerate workflows and make creative work more accessible. On the other, there are writers, artists, designers and creators who are concerned about copyright, originality, exploitation, and what happens to human creativity as machines become increasingly involved in the creative process.
Both sides have legitimate questions.
And perhaps the most useful conversation isn’t “Should creatives use AI?”
It is: “How should creatives use AI responsibly?”
Here are six questions I think every creative should be asking.
1. Whose work is AI learning from?
One of the biggest questions surrounding generative AI is also one of the most fundamental: What was used to teach these systems in the first place?
Large AI models have been developed using enormous quantities of human-created information. That raises difficult questions for writers, artists, photographers, musicians, and other creators.
If someone’s work contributes to the development of an AI system without their knowledge or permission, where should the line be drawn?
Is it:
- Innovation?
- Fair use?
- Inspiration?
- Exploitation?
- Or something that requires a completely new framework?
This isn’t simply a technology question. It is a question about ownership, consent, and the value we place on creative work.
2. When does AI assistance become plagiarism?
This is probably one of the questions creatives encounter most often. There is an obvious difference between asking AI to:
- Brainstorm ideas
- Organise thoughts
- Suggest an outline
- Identify gaps
- Improve clarity
- Challenge an argument
- Help with research
and asking AI to produce an entire piece of creative work and publish it under your name.
But the boundaries aren’t always obvious.
– What if AI produces the first draft and you rewrite it?
– What if you provide the concept, characters, and structure but AI writes the prose?
– What if you use AI to rewrite 30% of your original work?
At what point does assistance become authorship?
The reality is that different creative industries, publishers, clients, and audiences may develop different expectations. But every creator using AI should think carefully about where their own creative contribution begins and ends.
3. Who owns AI-assisted creative work?
This question becomes even more complicated when we move from ethics into intellectual property.
Imagine a creator who:
- Develops the original concept.
- Creates the creative direction.
- Gives detailed instructions to an AI system.
- Reviews the output.
- Rewrites substantial portions.
- Edits and publishes the final work.
Is the result theirs?
Now imagine another creator who gives AI a one-line prompt and publishes almost everything it produces.
Should those two situations be treated the same way? Probably not.
The challenge is that traditional ideas about authorship were developed around human creators. Generative AI complicates that model.
For creators, this means understanding not only what AI can produce, but also the implications of using it in work that you intend to sell, publish, or commercialise.
4. Should creatives disclose their use of AI?
This is another area where opinions differ sharply. Some people believe that audiences deserve to know when AI has played a significant role in creating something. Others argue that disclosure shouldn’t be necessary for relatively minor uses.
After all, creatives have always used tools: Writers use spellcheckers, Designers use templates, Photographers use editing software. Editors use grammar tools.
So does using an AI tool for brainstorming really require the same disclosure as publishing an entirely AI-generated book?
Perhaps the more useful question is: Does the level of AI involvement materially change what the audience believes they are buying or consuming?
That could become an important distinction.
5. Can we actually trust AI detection tools?
Here’s where things become particularly uncomfortable.
Imagine spending months writing a book, article, or screenplay yourself, and then being told that an AI detection tool believes the work was generated by AI.
What happens next?
AI detection tools can be useful indicators, but they shouldn’t automatically be treated as unquestionable proof of authorship.
False positives can have serious consequences, particularly when someone’s reputation, academic standing, publishing opportunity, or professional credibility is involved.
Technology used to police technology needs to be approached with considerable caution. Human review and context still matter.
6. Is anti-AI gatekeeping creating another problem?
This might be the most uncomfortable question of all. Not every creator has access to the same resources.
One person might have the whole fireworks – an editor, writing coach, designer, marketing team, and expensive creative software – while another might be working alone with limited time and resources.
For some creators, AI tools may provide accessibility or support that would otherwise be difficult or expensive to obtain.
This doesn’t mean every use of AI is automatically justified. It does mean we should be careful about creating a creative culture where any use of AI is automatically treated as unethical.
There is a difference between protecting human creativity and preventing people from accessing tools that can genuinely help them create.
So, should creatives use AI?
I don’t think there is a single answer, and I don’t think the answer should be “Never use AI” or “Use AI for everything.”
The better approach is intentionality.
Before using AI, ask:
– What am I trying to achieve?
– What part of this process requires my human judgement?
– What am I comfortable delegating to a machine?
– What standards does my audience, client, or industry expect?
– Am I adding genuine creative value or simply outsourcing the work?
Because ultimately, technology is a tool. The tool should serve the creative process, not replace the creative responsibility.
And perhaps every creative should have their own answer to one final question: What is your AI red line?
What would you happily use AI for? And what would you never hand over to it?
I’d love to hear your perspective.
P.S.: As we deliberate on this topic, I thought I’d mention that this post was initially drafted by an AI tool after sharing my thoughts with it, then refined and edited by me.
Share your thoughts with me; I’ll be reading and responding.
