AI and Creativity: Why the Backlash is More Than Just a Technological Debate
“Can I use AI to create my comics?” someone once posted on Reddit.
I had to grab popcorn.
What followed was an avalanche of disdain and criticism, the kind Reddit is notorious for. But this time, the animosity was united and surprisingly coherent. And it wasn’t against the poster, it was against AI-generated art itself.
Once upone a time, this was once confined to niche discussions among artists has now become a cultural flash point. On one side, enthusiasts see AI-generated art as a groundbreaking tool that democratizes creativity. AI-generated art enabled anyone to make art without traditional skills. On the other, there’s an ever-growing chorus of skeptics who view it as an existential threat to artistic authenticity, skill, and labor.
It’s not just artists who voice their opposition. Writers, game developers, filmmakers, and the audience often join the fray. United, they express frustration over AI-generated art’s encroachment into these spaces.
The backlash is visceral, and perhaps, deeply human.
So why does AI provoke such potent emotions in creative spaces? And what does can it teach us about ourselves? To understand, we need to dig deeper into the fears and frustrations that shimmer below the surface.
Now I am not here to tackle the legal issues of generative art as there are far better experts in that field. And they are the right experts to listen to.
Instead, I want to dig into the “why does AI-generated art evoke such powerful emotions?” Why does it feel threatening and infuriating to so many? And above all, what does this teach us about ourselves? And what can we do about it?
Data Points
According to Artsmart, a staggering 76% of people do not believe that AI-generated art should be classified as art. This overwhelming majority suggests a deep-seated reluctance to accept AI-generated art. Furthemore, 54% of people claim they can differentiate between AI-generated images and those created by humans. This shows that many viewers perceive a qualitative difference in AI-produced works. Furthermore, this potentially reinforces their skepticism.
This concern extends across disciplines, with similar discomfort expressed in other creative industries. We do see a lot of negative rhetoric in literature, film, comics, manga, and gaming. These industries have seen AI involvement has sparked heated debates.
Notable figures in the art world have voiced their disdain for AI-generated art. Take for example, the legendary British author and illustrator ,Rob Biddulph, stated that AI-generated art is “the exact opposite of what I believe art to be.” He emphasizes that simply pressing a button to generate art does not constitute the merit of expression.
On platforms like Reddit, these attitudes often manifest as hostility. With users vehemently opposing AI-generated comics, graphics, and other art forms. The backlash frequently centers on the perceived devaluation of human skill and the erosion of artistic integrity.
This has profound implications for AI- generated art marketability. If people are unwilling to recognize AI-generated art as genuine or valuable, it stands to reason that they are less likely to purchase it. If people are less likely to purchase it, it will not be celebrated. The growing backlash against AI’s involvement in creative fields reinforces the idea that despite its technological advances, AI-generated art has yet to be accepted as a credible market competitor.
But why the resentment?
Psychologically, It's Unsettling Changes
For centuries, people have viewed creativity as a sacred domain. This is a space where human imperfections and lived experiences converge to produce something authentic. I wrote about this in an older article. The idea that an artificial system, devoid of emotions or personal struggles, could replicate this process… is unsettling.
Humans fear loss more than the value they gain. We often refer to this as loss aversion. This bias shapes our reactions to threats, perceived or real, to things we value deeply. And creativity is something we value. So, when a machine produces art, it feels like something uniquely human is being taken away. Loss aversion suggests that the most natural reaction is to push back.
And fair enough!
Another psychological factor at play is mortality salience. Commonly, this is the awareness of our impermanence. When we see AI mimicking creativity, it forces us to confront the idea that even our creativity might not be exclusive to us. This realization challenges the narrative of human exceptionalism and stirs a quiet existential crisis. And with enough mass, it becomes loud.
There’s also a potent threat to distinctiveness at play. Humans value the ability to stand out, both individually and as a species. When a machine generates art that rivals or even outperforms human efforts, it’s perceived as an encroachment on our uniqueness. This, in turn, triggers resistance and frustration, which more often than not leads to hostility.
Can we truly hold AI accountable for this discomfort, or does the backlash reveal deeper insecurities? Creativity, after all, isn’t just about making something beautiful or useful; it’s a deeply personal expression of humanity itself. But perhaps one reflection that AI generative art has shown us is that we are maybe more replaceable than we like to admit.
Now, I do believe that our insecurities often comes from a place of vulnerability. Having said that, this is only one part of the issue.
It Feels Unfair
Work means something to us as we place value on labour, skill, and a sense of completion.
A primary concern fueling backlash against AI generated art is the perception that it devalues human skill and labor. People often admire art not just for the final product but for the effort and dedication. This phenomenon, known as the “effort heuristic,” helps explain why AI-generated art often feels wrong. It is hard to communicate how art that is able to produced in seconds without apparent struggle is worth the effort.
And I understand that there are two sides to that equation, but one is clearly winning.
The effort heuristic is a mental shortcut that involves judging the value of something based on how much perceived effort was required to produce it. For example, people may rate a painting or poem as a higher quality if they think it took more time and effort to create. Now there is a distinct beauty in that. Often, the more effort that has been placed in something, the better it is.
But AI generated art distinctly stands against this effort to output dynamic.
For example, platforms like DeviantArt have faced significant backlash for hosting AI-generated art alongside human creations. Many users express frustration, claiming that AI art floods galleries, overshadowing work that required months of effort. Artists frequently highlight that their audiences no longer ask, “How did you create this?” but rather, “Was this made by a machine?”
As one Reddit user put it, “If all I have to do is type a sentence and get an image back, then what’s the point of me trying at all?” The core frustration here is that the effort as the struggle is no longer required for creation. Why should we celebrate a machine’s output when it doesn’t experience the highs and lows, the trials and errors that human creators endure?
Moreover, the value we place on human-created work often comes from the knowledge that someone poured their heart and soul into it.
Will we focus solely on the end product, or will the process still matter? Or will the process matter more than the product for the audience?
Synthesis and Counterpoints
The resistance to AI-generated art reveals a fascinating clash of perspectives. We have covered some psychology, philosophy, and technology.
On one side, psychologists argue that much of the pushback stems from deeply ingrained fears. These center particularly around the fear of losing identity and creative relevance in a world increasingly dominated by machines.
From another angle, technologists see this resistance less as a psychological response and more as a reaction to systemic disruption. They frame AI as a tool for innovation rather than an adversary. They compare the backlash to historical reactions against technologies like photography or cinema.
Over time, these mediums didn’t replace traditional art forms. Rather, it redefined and expanded. This eventually carved out new niches and pushing the boundaries of creativity and expression.
But, the debate often revolves around the idea of authenticity and process, not always content. Many argue that art derives its value not just from its form or aesthetic but from the human “soul” behind it. And I would like to classify the “visibility of art’s soul” as the labor, the intent, and the imperfection. AI art, by its nature, lacks these elements, which makes it feel hollow or inauthentic.
Yet, technologists counter that authenticity is a malleable concept. Just as photography became celebrated for its technical and compositional skill, AI art might find value in its distinct qualities. This may include its ability to generate surreal or experimental forms that human artists rarely explore.
May.
There is also capitalism and the market to talk about too.
Beware The Motives Behind AI Art
There’s another reason for the backlash against AI-generated art that often goes unmentioned: skepticism toward the providers of these tools.
Humans are naturally wary of entities perceived as prioritizing profit over passion, especially in areas as deeply personal as art. Many see AI art tools as products of massive corporations, designed less for artistic innovation and more for market dominance. This perception creates a psychological barrier, as audiences feel that art is being reduced for sales metrics.
When tech giants release AI tools, it can feel like art is being hijacked by corporate interests. The intent behind the creation matters just as much as the work itself. People instinctively recognize the lack of passion and individuality in AI-generated content when profit-driven motives drive its creation.
That said, it’s important to acknowledge that not all AI tools are products of corporate agendas. Independent creators and open-source projects use AI to democratize art creation, offering new ways to create. The technology itself is neutral; it’s the application and intent behind its use that deserve scrutiny.
Yet, this neutrality is often overshadowed by the broader distrust of corporations flooding the market with AI tools. Even if independent creators use the same technology, the association with profit-driven motives often undermines the intention.
For many, it feels as though individual voices are being drowned out by an endless tide of mass-produced outputs. This further alienating audiences and makes them resent it more.
Overexposure Is Pollution
The backlash against AI-generated art isn’t just rooted in concerns about authenticity or ethics. A significant factor is the overwhelming pollution of AI-created content in our online spaces.
This “pollution” is described as the sheer volume of AI-generated works flooding platforms, making it harder for human-made creations to stand out and exacerbating user fatigue.
There are two things at work here.
Firstly, AI generated art often relies on pre-existing data sets to create outputs, which leads to repetitive and predictable content. This repetitiveness dilutes the uniqueness that audiences traditionally associate with artistic works. Studies have shown that this lack of variety contributes to “creative fatigue.” This is where users disengage because of the inability to find truly novel content amidst the overwhelming volume of AI-generated pieces.
Secondly, the constant exposure to AI-generated works has overwhelmed audiences. It is tiring. This exhaustion also leads to what some researchers call “content fatigue.” This phenomenon makes it harder for audiences to connect emotionally as the proliferation of content diminishes the value of the experience. The psychological effect mirrors issues seen in other over-saturated digital environments, like streaming platforms or news feeds.
One issue that plagues many people is the overload of uniformity, which is an uncomfortable synthesis of the two problems above. And it is exhausting.
Where does this leave new creators?
I believe it is so crucial to understand that no one wants to be replaceable and expendable. Because being disposable is only one step away from that. In many ways, art is a reflection of human uniqueness; when AI starts to replicate it, we are confronted with the uncomfortable notion that we might not be as irreplaceable as we’d like to believe. The backlash against AI-generated art is downstream from this existential threat to identity.
For many, it’s not just about art; it’s about our place in the world.
As creators, it is our responsibility to take note.
So what can we do? Well, I have some uneducated guesses.
It’s possible that the future of creativity lies in a hybrid model, where AI and humans work together in ways neither could do alone. AI can handle repetitive, time-consuming tasks (like generating texture maps for a game). However, humans are necessary to guide the vision, bring emotional depth, and make complex, judgment-based decisions.
The problem with that is we really do not know where the line of “acceptability” is.
I also think that the true value of art may not rest solely in the final product, but in the process behind its creation. The process of creating art often involves personal struggle, growth, and expression. It is these elements that resonate with people.
Artists and creators might find that their true role is in shaping the process — how they use AI, or how they integrate it into their creative workflow — rather than just competing with it.
Maybe.
That or I should write my novel purely in pencil.
