The recent backlash against Bristol City Council for using AI-generated artwork on the cover of a creative courses booklet raises important questions about the evolving relationship between AI and human creativity. On one hand, the criticism from illustrators like Adam Birch and Luke Oram is valid; AI-generated images with telltale errors (like extra or missing fingers) can feel amateurish and unintentionally devalue the skills that creative courses aim to teach. This touches on a deeper concern—the fear that AI might undercut opportunities for emerging artists and erode nuanced human skills.
But let's also view this through a pragmatic lens: AI-generated art costs are minimal and can be produced quickly, which is attractive for cash-strapped councils and organizations. The key takeaway here might be about intentionality and messaging. If a council uses AI to promote creative human skills, it sends a confusing signal. Why learn hands-on creativity if a council itself opts for a cheap AI shortcut?
This incident underscores the need for thoughtful policies rather than blanket rejection of AI. AI isn’t inherently evil or a job-wiper; it’s a tool. Using it in ways that respect the value of human creativity—and being transparent about its use—could demystify AI and help integrate it responsibly.
And, yes, AI art still has hilarious little glitches that remind us it isn’t quite human — think of it as a clumsy apprentice, not a master artist. For audiences and policymakers, it’s about finding balance: embracing AI’s efficiencies while safeguarding meaningful creative education and employment.
Bottom line? Let’s not throw the AI baby out with the bathwater. But let’s not serve AI as a substitute for creative expression, especially when the message is about learning those very skills. Source: Bristol City Council's use of AI for creative booklet criticised
