When Everything Starts to Look AI-Generated, What Happens to Human Creativity?

Have we become so accustomed to AI that we're beginning to question everything we see? And, perhaps more importantly, are we losing our ability to recognise and appreciate genuine human creativity?

Something happened recently that got me thinking about the increasingly blurred lines between human creativity and artificial intelligence.

I'm currently preparing to release the second edition of one of my books in 2027, and I've been considering giving it a completely new cover.

Now, anyone who knows me knows that I'm quite particular about book covers. As an author and publisher, I understand the importance of getting them right. A cover isn't simply there to look pretty, it's a marketing tool, a first impression and, in many cases, the deciding factor in whether someone picks up a book or scrolls straight past it.

The first edition of this particular book has been successful, and its cover is already familiar to readers. So, naturally, I found myself wondering whether changing it completely was a wise decision. Do I stick with something tried, tested and recognisable? Something readers already associate with the book? Or do I create something entirely different? Something bolder, more contemporary and more closely aligned with the expectations of its genre?

My instincts were telling me to change it.

I developed a new cover that I loved. It was bold, direct and professionally designed to meet the expectations of its intended audience. It followed the conventions of the genre, communicated the book's purpose and, most importantly, felt right for this next chapter.

But before making the final decision, I did what many of us do when we're about to make a significant change - I asked for feedback to give me the reassurance I was looking for.

I shared the options with a small group of trusted colleagues and reviewers, people whose opinions I respect and whose feedback I knew would be constructive.

And the response? Almost unanimous...

'The new cover looks too AI-generated.'

Well, that wasn't quite what I expected.

But here's the clincher…

The new cover wasn't AI-generated.

The original cover, which almost everyone preferred, was.

Go figure! I had to laugh at the irony.

Here I was, considering replacing an AI-generated cover with a professionally designed alternative, only to be told that the human-created version looked too much like AI.

And suddenly, the conversation became much more interesting than which book cover I should choose.

When did 'looking like AI' become a criticism?

It's a curious thing, isn't it?

Not so long ago, we admired images for their detail, creativity, composition and professional finish. We appreciated clever design, beautiful photography and artwork that made us stop and look twice.

Now, some of those very same qualities seem to raise suspicion - an image looks too polished, the lighting is too perfect, the colours are too vibrant, the composition is too balanced - it must be AI!

Of course, artificial intelligence has developed certain visual characteristics that many of us have learnt to recognise (and ignore). We've all seen the overly smooth faces, impossibly perfect backgrounds, strangely positioned fingers and illustrations that seem to have a particular artificial sheen. But what happens when genuine human creativity shares some of those characteristics?

What happens when a talented designer produces something so polished that people automatically assume it couldn't have been created by a person? And when did looking professional become something we need to defend?

I find that particularly perplexing. Because the reality is that artists, photographers, illustrators and designers have spent years, sometimes decades, developing the skills required to create extraordinary work and with the introduction of AI, we have upped those skills to keep up with the rising trend of AI generated content.

Surely we don't want to reach a point where creativity is dismissed simply because it resembles something a machine might produce?

Are we really becoming THAT suspicious of everything?

I've noticed it happening in my own life. Someone shares an beautiful photograph on social media, and rather than simply appreciating it, I find myself studying the details… Is that real? Could that actually happen? Is the lighting natural? Are those proportions right?

And sometimes, even after looking closely, I genuinely can't tell.

I've seen photographs of landscapes, animals, buildings and people that have made me question whether what I'm seeing actually exists. I've also seen images that look suspiciously artificial, only to discover they're completely legitimate.

It's a strange position to find ourselves in.

For generations, photographs have been used to document moments, preserve memories and provide evidence of things that happened.

Of course, image manipulation existed long before AI. Photographs have been edited, enhanced and staged for as long as the technology has allowed. But AI has taken things to an entirely different level.

Today, we can create convincing images of people who don't exist, places we've never visited and events that never happened, and we can do it in seconds, for free!

The result is that we're no longer simply looking at images, we're questioning them.

Perhaps that's not entirely a bad thing. A healthy degree of scepticism is important, particularly when misinformation can spread so quickly.

But I wonder whether we're also becoming unnecessarily suspicious of genuine creativity.

Has AI changed our definition of authenticity?

When someone says an image 'looks AI-generated', what are they actually saying?

That it's too perfect? Too generic? Too polished? That it lacks personality, originality or some indefinable human quality?

Or have we simply developed an unconscious association between certain visual styles and AI? Because those are very different criticisms.

A design can be overly polished without being AI-generated, generic without involving AI, and it can lack originality despite being created entirely by a human.

Equally, an AI-generated image can be visually appealing, emotionally engaging and surprisingly effective at communicating a message.

My own book cover experience demonstrated that rather neatly.

The people reviewing my designs weren't necessarily identifying which cover had been created using AI, they were responding to how the covers made them feel, and perhaps that's where things become complicated.

We've started using 'AI-generated' not simply to describe how something was made, but to describe how we feel about it. And I'm not entirely sure that's fair.

So what does this mean for creative industries?

As someone who works in publishing, I think about this a great deal. AI is already changing the way we write, edit, illustrate, design, market and produce books and don’t get me wrong, some of those changes are exciting. Others raise important questions about originality, copyright, transparency and the value of creative work.

I don't believe the conversation needs to be reduced to whether AI is good or bad. Like most technological developments, its impact depends enormously on how we choose to use it.

But I do think we need to be careful about how quickly we judge the creative work of others.

If a designer spends hours developing a beautiful book cover, should their work be dismissed because someone thinks it looks like AI? If a photographer captures an extraordinary moment, should they have to prove the image is genuine? If an author writes a particularly polished passage, should we immediately question whether they wrote it themselves? And perhaps most importantly, if we're constantly questioning how something was created, are we spending less time appreciating what was created?

I certainly don't have all the answers.

As a publisher, I value the experience, imagination and individuality that human creatives bring to every project. I also recognise that technology has always influenced the way we create, and artificial intelligence is now part of that evolving landscape. But I would hate to see a future where genuine creativity becomes harder to celebrate simply because we've become conditioned to question its origins.

Are we becoming more accepting of AI, or just more confused?

Perhaps both. On one hand, AI-generated content is becoming so commonplace that we're growing accustomed to seeing it. On the other, the more sophisticated it becomes, the harder it is to distinguish from human-created work.

And somewhere in the middle, our expectations are shifting.

We're becoming familiar with images that would once have seemed extraordinary. We're seeing increasingly polished content produced at remarkable speed, and perhaps we're beginning to associate certain styles with artificial intelligence, regardless of how they were actually created.

Which brings me back to my book cover. The feedback I received was valuable, even if it wasn't what I expected.

After all, publishing is about connecting books with readers, and perception matters. If a cover makes potential readers think 'AI-generated', that reaction is worth considering, whether the assumption is correct or not.

So, where does that leave me?

I'm still deciding what to do about my book cover.

Do I trust my instincts and embrace something new, or do I listen to the overwhelming feedback and stick with what readers already know? It's a decision I'll make with both my creative instincts and my publishing experience but would also love your input. Here are the 2 covers, I won’t reveal which is which (1^st or 2^nd edition), you just tell me your thoughts.