Welcome to ‘The Human Side of AI‘, a blog series exploring what AI really means for creativity, ethics, sustainability, and the future of human work. This series cuts through the hype to ask deeper questions about how technology impacts us all. This is the third post in the series.
By Erin Beattie, Founder and CCO, Engage and Empower Consulting
When I talk about AI, one of the first questions I get, especially from friends and colleagues in creative fields, is this:
“Is AI going to replace artists and writers?”
It’s a question filled with real anxiety. And I think it’s one of the places where the human side of AI matters most.
Because behind every piece of writing, every painting, every photograph, there is a human story. An experience, a memory, a choice. AI doesn’t have lived experience. It doesn’t feel grief or joy. It doesn’t know what it is like to stand in a kitchen late at night, tasting sauce and deciding it needs a pinch more salt. Spoiler: it always needs more salt.
AI won’t replace creativity, but it will reshape the creative landscape. As Tim Carson, RSE, MA, Trades Educator, put it: “AI will not replace, but disrupt our vocations. It will force those who care about authenticity to rise up a level or two in their creative work.”
AI is simply the newest tool. What truly matters is how people design and use it, whether it protects human voice and consent or undermines them.
The Fear of Being Replaced
There is no denying the hype. Tools like ChatGPT, Midjourney, and DALL-E have shown they can produce writing, art, and design at incredible speed. Some of it is surprisingly good at first glance.
But the question is, good enough for what?
Victoria Duncan said it beautifully on LinkedIn: “We were told it would write for us, but no one wants to read AI writing, and no one telling us this understood what a writer actually does.”
This resonates deeply. Writing isn’t just assembling words. Art isn’t just colours on a screen. Creativity is human context, insight, and intuition.
A Harvard Business Review article explains that AI can support creative work, but it can’t truly replace the creative process that makes work original and resonant.
The Reality of Copyright and Ethics
While I believe AI will not replace creative professionals, it absolutely raises urgent ethical questions.
In an earlier post in this series, I shared how Adrienne Dyer, an artist and writer, described it as plagiarism and art theft on a grand scale. That fear isn’t theoretical. It’s playing out in real lawsuits and heated debates across the creative industries.
In January 2023, a group of artists filed a class-action lawsuit against Stability AI and Midjourney, arguing that these companies had used millions of copyrighted images to train their AI systems without permission, creating tools that could now mimic artists’ unique styles. Reuters reported that the artists allege this undermines their ability to earn a living and violates intellectual property rights.
It’s not just visual art. Musicians are raising alarms, too. In 2023, Rolling Stone covered how major labels like Universal Music Group have pushed back against AI-generated songs that imitate famous artists’ voices and styles without consent.
The Authors Guild [PDF] has been vocal, warning that generative AI threatens the livelihoods of writers by training on copyrighted books and articles without permission. They’re advocating for stronger laws to protect authors from having their work used in AI datasets without credit or compensation.
Imagine spending years honing your craft, only to see an AI tool replicate your style in seconds, without recognition or pay. That isn’t innovation. That is theft, repackaged as progress.
These legal battles and ethical questions strike at the core of what it means to be a creator. It’s not just about protecting jobs. It’s about protecting our identities, our stories, and the human connection that fuels creative work.
The fight is about more than royalties; it’s about protecting the very act of original creation. Carson reminds us that: “Anyone can apprentice under the masters, yet it isn’t until the apprentice leans into their ability and expression that they create their own shadow.” That distinct shadow, our voice, our lived expression, is what copyright law is really meant to safeguard.
Creativity as Connection
The heart of creativity isn’t just novelty; it’s connection.
When we read a story that makes us cry, it’s because another human poured something true into those words. When we see a painting that takes our breath away, it’s because someone saw the world differently and shared that vision with us.
AI can generate endless variations, but it doesn’t care and it doesn’t choose what matters.
I believe this is where the human side of AI is most important. While AI can help us brainstorm or handle tedious tasks, it can’t feel the spark of inspiration that comes from being alive.
Finding Our Place as Creators
So, where does that leave us as writers, artists, and creative professionals?
I think it leaves us in a place of power. We’re not waiting for AI to tell us what matters in creative work; we define that through consent, context, and connection.
AI might be able to imitate styles or mimic formats. But it can’t replace the human experience. It can’t replace the trust and connection we build with our audiences or the decisions we make about how our work is shared.
That is something I have thought about a lot.
For nearly a decade, I led communications at BCcampus, where we worked deeply within the open education movement. Every publication we created was shared under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which meant anyone could reuse or remix our content, as long as they gave credit.
It was never just a legal framework. It was a commitment to values.
Open education is rooted in consent, transparency, and equitable access. It exists to make knowledge more available, not more extractable. We believed that content should be shared openly and respectfully, and that creators deserve to be acknowledged when their work is used.
That is the part that feels missing in the current wave of AI.
Generative tools have scraped vast swaths of the internet, including licensed, paywalled, and very personal content, often without permission. The openness is one-sided. And that is not just a copyright issue, it’s a trust issue.
When AI is used to remix someone’s creative voice without credit or consent, that is not innovation. That is erasure. It undermines the very principles of openness and respect that open education has worked so hard to protect.
So no, I don’t believe AI will replace creators. But I do believe it’s forcing us to get clearer about what matters, the boundaries we set, and the values we hold. Inspiration, too, remains human territory. As Carson put it: “Perhaps inspiration is the defining quality that AI just cannot reproduce.”
I’m not against AI, I’m all for it when it’s designed with balance and care, and when people remain in charge of their voices and choices. AI won’t decide how it’s used, people will, and some are already modelling a different path, one where the tool extends human creativity, not erases it. Generative Textbooks are one such example.
Generative Textbooks and the Future of Learning
Generative Textbooks isn’t just flashy tech; through intentional design, it represents a different intent. It reimagines learning in a way that merges the adaptability of AI with the values of open education: transparency, responsiveness, and shared agency.
Instead of static pages, learners engage with prompt-powered “textbooks” that adapt explanations, examples, and feedback based on their interests and needs. It becomes a shift from reading to conversing, where curiosity and questioning guide the experience.
David Wiley, Founder and Chief Academic Officer, Lumen Learning, captures this well: “Imagine how much more natural it would be to teach metacognitive skills, information literacy, and related topics when a learner’s primary activity is asking questions of an LLM, rather than reading a static text.”
At its core, the project brings together the openness of OER and the responsiveness of generative AI. It invites educators to co-author learning and learners to become active explorers. It’s not replacing expertise; it’s scaffolding it so that every voice has space to guide the journey.
Let’s Keep Creating
The world needs art. It needs writing. It needs human creativity more than ever.
The choice isn’t AI or no AI. It’s how we use the tool, whether it respects consent, amplifies creativity, and broadens access. That is both a human and a leadership responsibility. Generative Textbooks show what’s possible when design and agency come first.
If you are a creator wrestling with these questions, I would love to hear from you. How are you navigating AI in your work? What boundaries feel important to you? Let’s keep this conversation going.
This post is part of ‘The Human Side of AI’. Explore more insights on creativity, ethics, sustainability, and how AI is reshaping our world by reading the whole series.
References
Creative Commons: About CC Licenses.
Authors Guild. (2023). The Authors Guild on AI and Copyright. [PDF]
Generative Textbooks. Generative Textbooks Project. Retrieved August 20, 2025, from https://generativetextbooks.org/
Wiley, David. Democratizing Participation in AI in Education. improving learning, August 19, 2025. Retrieved from https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/7821.
Harvard Business Review. (2023). AI Won’t Replace Creativity, but It Will Transform Creative Work.
Reuters. (2023). U.S. Artists Sue Stability AI, Midjourney Over AI-Generated Images.
Rolling Stone. (2023). Universal Music and Artists Fight AI Song Clones.
