The DTC beauty category is crowded. To break through, Jennifer Anniston’s brand LolaVie, worked with Roku Ads Manager to easily set up, test, and optimize CTV ad creatives. The campaign helped drive a big lift in sales and customer growth, helping LolaVie break through in the crowded beauty category.

Learn more

A few months ago, a writer sat down and tried to write a short fable. He had the idea, the moral, the characters. But the words just would not come out right. So he did something he felt slightly guilty about. He typed the plot into ChatGPT and asked it to write the story for him.

What came back stopped him cold.

It was not just good. It was better than anything he felt he could have written himself. Vivid, structured, emotionally resonant. Done in under sixty seconds.

He stared at the screen for a while and then closed his laptop.

That feeling he had, somewhere between amazement and dread, is the feeling millions of writers, designers, musicians, and artists are quietly sitting with right now. And nobody is talking about it honestly enough.

So let us talk about it.

This is not a future conversation anymore. It is a right now conversation.

Since 2022, generative AI has made serious inroads into creative industries including art, music, and creative writing. In the realm of artistic imagery alone, human creatives have been replaced in significant numbers across graphic design, illustration, and game design.

On Spotify, over 75 million tracks were removed for being spammy AI-generated content flooding the platform. A fake band called Velvet Sundown accumulated over a million streams before anyone realised it was entirely synthetic. On Etsy, handmade craft sellers report their listings drowning in a sea of AI-generated designs.

These are not edge cases. This is the new normal.

When AI can generate a decent logo in seconds, why hire a graphic designer? When algorithms can compose background music for videos, why pay a composer? The threat is not just theoretical anymore.

Here is the uncomfortable part.

We have spent years being told that AI will only handle the boring, repetitive stuff. That creativity is the one thing machines cannot touch. That the human spark, the emotion, the lived experience behind art, is irreplaceable.

And that was a comforting story. It just might not be entirely true.

Large language models do not need our creative struggle. When AI produces better work in seconds, calling it "assistance" is just corporate spin for something more disruptive. The idea that AI is here only to assist stems partly from reassurance. society is not ready to admit that machines can approach or surpass human creativity in certain areas.

But here is where it gets more complicated. Because the honest answer is not simple.

Before you spiral, stay with this for a moment.

AI has no joys, sorrows, or lived experiences to draw upon. When a musician writes a song or an artist paints a landscape, they draw on memories, dreams, and cultural stories. That personal spark makes art resonate with others because we sense it comes from someone's real experience. AI follows patterns it has learned. Humans have spontaneous urges, bursts of creativity, and emotional motivations that push beyond any pattern.

Artists often talk about the happy accidents that take their work in a bold new direction. A painter might spill paint and then follow that mistake into a whole new style. AI might eventually copy that style if it knows it is considered artistic, but it did not have the accident or the moment of epiphany.

Oxford researchers put it clearly: artistic creativity is about making choices, what material to use, what message to carry across to an audience, and it develops in the context in which an artist works, the world we inhabit. That cannot be replicated by machine learning, which is just a data-driven tool.

And there is something else worth knowing.

AI models trained on their own output will eventually collapse. If each generation of a generative AI model tries to approximate and mimic complex human appreciation of an art form, its output will be a copy with increasing error. A model can reproduce the most popular styles confidently, but much less so at the edges. With each iteration, it adds more error, moving further from the ground truth that is subjective human standards.

In other words, AI creativity feeds on human creativity. Without us making original things, the well runs dry.

Here is the shift that is already happening among people who create for a living.

Designers who used to spend 80% of their time on production mechanics now spend 80% of their time on creative direction. That is a fundamental shift in what being an artist means. The tool does not replace the human eye. It accelerates the human vision.

When generating concepts is cheap, people stop clinging to their first idea out of sunk cost. They push further, experiment more, and throw away mediocre work without guilt. That willingness to iterate is where real artistic improvement comes from.

The artists who are thriving are not the ones fighting AI or fully surrendering to it. They are the ones who figured out where their human judgment belongs in the process and planted their flag there.

But here is the thing that genuinely worries me.

The real danger lies in what we are quietly surrendering. When we outsource not just execution but ideation to algorithms, we risk eroding the very faculties that define human creativity, our ability to innovate, imagine, and solve problems from first principles. Like any unused muscle, our creative cognition weakens without regular exercise. Already there are signs, designers who cannot sketch without AI prompts, writers who stare blankly at empty pages when disconnected from AI tools.

That is the version of this story that actually keeps me up at night. Not that AI will replace artists. But that we will slowly stop practicing the thing that makes us artists in the first place.

A few honest thoughts.

First, stop waiting for permission to still make things. The value of human creativity is not just in the output. It is in the process. In the thinking, the struggling, the choosing. AI cannot have that experience. Only you can.

Second, as AI becomes more common, we may come to value the authentic human touch even more, similar to how handmade crafts and artisanal goods found a market in a world of mass production. Audiences may increasingly seek out artists who share their creative process openly, emphasising what personal life experiences shaped each piece.

Third, use the tools. But use them the way a good chef uses a sharp knife. The knife does not cook the meal. You do.

And finally, keep making things that only you could have made. The messy things. The personal things. The things that would not exist without your specific life, your specific failures, your specific way of seeing.

That is the one thing AI will never be able to generate from a prompt.

— Roo