AI is a genuinely game-changing technology. It has already proven its worth across fields like science, medicine, industry, logistics, finance, and education. In some cases—like DeepMind’s AlphaFold, which cracked the protein folding problem—it has advanced our understanding by decades. But can it also serve as a meaningful tool in creative work?
That depends on how it’s used.
In this post, I’ll explore the pros and cons of generative AI and consider how we can distinguish between creativity that’s been enhanced by AI and output that’s merely imitating it.
Valid Concerns
AI tools like large language models (LLMs) are incredibly easy to use—perhaps too easy. I could open ChatGPT and ask it to write a blog post exploring the pros and cons of generative AI, and it would give me a result that reads surprisingly well. A convincing imitation of creative output.
But it wouldn’t be my voice or my ideas. It wouldn’t carry the nuance or depth I aim for. It would simply be a coherent article covering the topic, not a reflection of my perspective.
When writers express concern about AI taking their jobs, that fear is entirely valid. If anyone can generate a passable article in seconds with a vague prompt, it’s fair to question whether true creativity is being devalued. And they’re right to argue that this kind of content generation isn’t creativity.
LLMs aren't creative—they’re predictive. They don’t form new ideas; they generate the most statistically likely next word based on patterns in their training data. That makes them excellent tools for improving structure, flow, and coherence—but not originators of creative thought.
These are valid concerns. But they have less to do with the tool itself, and more to do with how it’s used.
How AI Can Enhance Creativity
I do use AI—throughout my creative process. For this post, I wrote a complete draft first, then asked ChatGPT to polish it. The ideas, the framing, the overall structure are all mine. AI simply tidied up the presentation.
That alone is a useful and time-saving tool. But the real value goes much deeper.
AI helps me explore the ideas behind a piece. I can use ChatGPT to look at a concept from different angles, pull at various threads to see where they lead, challenge my assumptions, and test my logic. It helps me uncover perspectives I might have missed.
AI offers an always-available, unbiased sounding board—allowing me to expand a simple thought into something worth sharing. It’s a tool that aids in developing and refining the core ideas I want to express and clarifying how I want to express them.
Used this way, AI isn’t imitating creativity—it’s enhancing the creative process.
Telling the Difference
So, how can we tell if an AI-assisted piece reflects genuine creativity or just minimal human input? At first glance, it can be tricky—generative AI is remarkably good at producing text that sounds polished. But there are a few key things to look for that can offer some important clues.
Signs of Minimal Human Input
These suggest the author may have relied on AI to generate the bulk of the work with little creative contribution:
-
Generic Openings and Phrases
Look out for overused lines like “In today’s fast-paced world…” or “Technology is evolving rapidly…”—they often indicate templated or default AI responses. -
Lack of Specificity
If the piece makes vague references (“some people say…” or “there are many benefits…”) without diving into concrete examples, the human touch may be missing. -
Balanced but Bland Takes
AI tends to avoid taking strong stances unless directed. If the piece feels like it’s trying to please everyone or sits awkwardly on the fence, that could be a clue. -
Shallow Exploration of Ideas
Content that lists points without expanding on them—especially without personal insight—might suggest minimal author involvement.
Signs of Strong Human Authorship
These features indicate the piece likely reflects the author’s real thinking and creativity—even if AI tools were used along the way:
-
Original Framing and Fresh Angles
A clear, specific perspective that isn’t just repeating the obvious. You might see the author asking unique questions or proposing unusual comparisons. -
Meaningful Analogies or Metaphors
Good metaphors often come from personal thought processes, not generic patterns. When an analogy really fits the point being made, it’s usually the result of deliberate thinking. -
Personal Voice or Point of View
Does the piece feel like someone is actually talking to you? Does it reflect their curiosity, humor, doubt, or conviction? That’s human authorship shining through. -
Depth Over Breadth
Rather than just listing ideas, the author explores one or two in depth, unpacking tensions or walking through their reasoning. -
Comfort With Complexity
A thoughtful creator might admit uncertainty, acknowledge nuance, or even leave questions open-ended. That’s a sign of real reflection—not just machine summary.
A Balanced Perspective
I'm in the unusual position of seeing the value of AI as a creative tool while fully acknowledging the risks it poses to creatives. That doesn’t mean I have easy answers. What I do believe is that transparency matters. I try to be open about how I use these tools, and I trust that my creative integrity comes through in the depth, nuance, and framing of the ideas I choose to explore.
Pointing out the signs of genuine creative input can help readers understand the difference between thoughtful use and shallow imitation. But the truth is, AI is very good at what it does—and the line between assisted and automated can sometimes be blurry.
Like any powerful tool, generative AI can be used well or poorly. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution. But if we can help people understand the difference, we at least give them the chance to use it—and judge it—with care.
Create Your Own Website With Webador