Tool or substitute? AI in the creative industry

Artificial intelligence is here to stay. We hear this statement so often now that we hardly question it anymore. AI has long since established itself as a standard tool in the tech industry: for automation, for analysing large amounts of data, or for optimising processes. There, it fulfils a clear function. It takes on repetitive tasks, speeds up routines, and recognises patterns where human capacities reach their limits.
Problems arise when this logic is applied uncritically to other areas, especially the creative industry. Because what creates efficiency in technical systems has a much deeper impact on creative processes.
There is a fundamental difference between AI as a supporting tool and AI as a full-fledged replacement for human creativity, a difference that we are currently blurring all too easily. This has far-reaching consequences for everyone who makes a living from creative work.

The confusion between tools and substitutes

A tool extends human capabilities. A hammer does not replace a craftsman, but makes him more efficient. A DAW (Digital Audio Worrkstation) has not replaced musicians, but has opened up new sonic possibilities that would never have existed in analogue form. Photoshop has not displaced photographers, but has created new creative scope.
All these tools have one thing in common: humans remain the decisive authority. Technology executes what a creative mind dictates.
However, AI is increasingly being used differently. It not only makes supportive decisions, but also takes over the creative core itself. It composes music independently, writes complete texts without briefing and develops image concepts without human ideas as a starting point.
This is where the transition from tool to substitute takes place. And this is exactly where the problem begins.

The economics of 'good enough'

Streaming platforms are currently flooded with AI-generated music. Not with experimental art projects, but with mass-produced, generic content whose sole purpose is reach and minimal revenue. Hundreds of tracks per week, uploaded by actors with no artistic ambition, compete with people who have invested years in their craft.
The same pattern can be seen in stock photos, illustrations and texts. Technically clean, stylistically familiar, but rarely innovative. Above all, one thing: good enough.
‘Good enough’ is the enemy of excellence. Why hire a designer when a prompt can deliver an acceptable result in 30 seconds? Why pay studio rent when an algorithm can generate a track that sounds ‘okay’? Why hire a copywriter when a language model can produce formally correct sentences?
This creates a race to the bottom. It's not the best that prevails, but the cheapest. The bar is lowered to the statistical average.

What algorithms cannot do

Creativity does not arise from optimising existing patterns. It arises from consciously breaking rules, from friction and mistakes that lead to new ideas.
An algorithm trained on millions of data points reproduces what has already worked. It can imitate styles, adhere to conventions and combine patterns. What it cannot do is produce genuine innovation in the true sense of the word. Because innovation means creating something that did not exist before.
Punk would never have emerged if algorithms had decided what was marketable in the 1970s. Hip-hop would have been too far removed from existing conventions. Impressionism would have been considered a technical error. Every creative revolution was a conscious break with the status quo.
AI cannot initiate this break. It can vary, rearrange and combine, but it cannot intentionally violate its own logic.

Where AI is a useful tool

This does not mean that AI has no place in creative processes. Used as a tool, it can have an enormous impact.
A good example is AI-supported audio mastering tools. For a long time, professional mastering was expensive, technically demanding and out of reach for many amateur musicians. AI tools significantly lower this barrier to entry. They analyse tracks, identify problems and deliver usable results for demos or independent releases.
However, it is crucial to note that they do not replace an experienced mastering engineer. The subtle nuances, the final touch of quality and contextual understanding remain the domain of humans. AI creates a new middle ground. It facilitates access without devaluing top performance.

This is precisely the principle we follow at IDENTIC. We use AI in workflow automation, not to replace people, but to relieve them. Customer service employees gain time for complex issues, project managers for strategic decisions. AI takes over repetition, consistency and speed. People retain judgement, creativity and empathy.
The difference lies in control and purpose. If AI takes over repetitive tasks and creates space for better decisions, its use makes sense. If it breaks down barriers and enables more people to work creatively, it creates real added value. If it serves as a testing ground for new forms of expression, it is exciting. However, if it is used to completely bypass creative work simply because it is cheaper, it has a destructive effect.

Responsibility is not an option, but a duty

Technology is neutral. Its impact comes from its use. Platforms, companies, clients and consumers bear equal responsibility.
AI-generated content should be clearly labelled. Not as a stigma, but as information. Companies must ask themselves not only what is technically possible, but also what makes sense for society. Clients should question whether ‘good enough’ really creates value in the long term.
And creatives must raise their voices. For their craft. For quality. For the human dimension that cannot be calculated.

Conclusion: A tool, not a substitute

The crucial question is not technological, but fundamental: Do we use AI to enhance human creativity or to circumvent it?
The answer to this question determines whether we will live in a future with genuine diversity or in a world of interchangeable ‘good enough’ content that doesn't really touch anyone.
At IDENTIC, our stance is clear: AI is a powerful tool. But the creative impulse, responsibility and emotional depth remain with humans.
Technology should enable, not replace. Enhance, not supplant. Respecting this boundary is not anti-technology, but a prerequisite for creative work to retain its value in the future.