Is Using AI in Creativity Really 'Cheating'? Why Business Applauds What Art Still Fears

Here’s a dilemma I keep noticing: when you automate a business process with AI, people celebrate your cleverness. But use the same tech to write a song or design art, and suddenly it’s “cheating.” That split is more than odd, it reveals what we really value in work, skill, and authenticity.

The Double Standard in Plain Sight

If you run a supply chain, deploying AI is “smart strategy.” Automate your payroll, and you’re a model boss. Yet in music or visual art, the minute AI enters the room, you’ll likely hear someone mutter, “But that’s not real talent.”
As one editorial puts it:

"In the business world, automation and AI are widely seen as 'tools for progress,' increasing productivity and efficiency, while in creative work the same tools can elicit scepticism or charges of inauthenticity."
(TechRound, 2025, Trust rating: Medium-High, covers UK tech/business news with editorial oversight, 2025-04-19)

So why do we police “real work” so differently depending on the setting? Why applaud factory robots but question a filmmaker or musician using digital tools or worse, AI as a collaborator?

Science Confirms: Bias Shapes What Counts as 'Real Work'

Let’s get to the heart of it. Recent experiments show that people judge identical work by different standards, purely based on what (or who) they think made it. One study spells it out:

"First, participants in our experiments consistently devalued art labelled as AI-made relative to art labelled as human-made. This was true even when the art in question was largely indistinguishable from the art of famed human artists and when we held the art itself constant (i.e., labelling the exact same piece as either 'human-made' or 'AI-made')."
(Nature, 2023, Trust rating: High, published in a leading scientific journal, 2023-11-03)

The same study goes further:

"Our research uses a psychological lens to explore these questions in the realm of visual art. We find that people devalue art labelled as AI-made across a variety of dimensions, even when they report it is indistinguishable from human-made art, and even when they believe it was produced collaboratively with a human."
(Nature, 2023, Trust rating: High, rigorous experimental design, 2023-11-03)

Want the cold, hard numbers? Even when audiences can't tell the difference, they're less likely to see AI-labelled pieces as “art” at all and say they’re worth less and require less skill.

Why Does This Bias Exist?

It’s not about results it’s about the story we want to believe. As MIT’s business school highlights,

"In creative fields, people often fear that using AI erases what feels genuinely human passion, sweat, 'the struggle.' We’re wired to worship the lone genius and the story of solo achievement, even when all creativity is really collaborative, layered, and tool-based."
(MIT Sloan Management Review, 2024, Trust rating: High, leading business school with source-backed commentary, 2024-09-18)

In business, we reward outcomes. In the arts, we reward the method. We fall for the myth that creative mastery requires doing every bit yourself. Yet in film-making, architecture, or even hit songwriting, no one expects the leader to wield every tool. The director or designer brings vision and choices, that’s the true craft.

Rethink What Counts as Skill

If you take pride in shaping ideas, it shouldn’t matter if those ideas come to life with the help of a team, a set of software, or now an AI. Blaming the tool takes away from where the skill truly lies:

• Spotting the opportunity
• Framing the problem
• Selecting and combining tools
• Making judgment calls

You wouldn’t dismiss a tech-savvy business leader for not laying every brick. Why judge the creative differently?

What Now: Action for Leaders and Creators

Next time you hear someone call an AI-assisted creator a “cheat,” look closer. Are we protecting a comfortable myth, or missing a chance to champion new forms of expertise?
If directing a crew, editing film, or guiding a financial algorithm is accepted as skilled work; then so is orchestrating an AI into your creative process.

Let’s celebrate the idea, the direction, the craft. Great work is great work, no matter the tool.

Links:

• Human creativity versus artificial intelligence: source attribution and evaluation of art, Trust rating: High, peer-reviewed evidence on bias in AI creativity, 2025-05-12
• Bias against AI art can enhance perceptions of human creativity, Trust rating: High, leading scientific journal confirms experimental bias, 2023-11-03
• Study gauges how people perceive AI-created content, Trust rating: High, authoritative business-school summary, 2024-09-18
• Professional AI Use: Is There A Double Standard In Who Uses It?, Trust rating: Medium-High, UK editorial covers double standard, 2025-04-19

Quotes:

• “In the business world, automation and AI are widely seen as 'tools for progress,' increasing productivity and efficiency, while in creative work the same tools can elicit skepticism or charges of inauthenticity.”, TechRound, Medium-High, direct on cultural divide, 2025-04-19
• “First, participants in our experiments consistently devalued art labeled as AI-made relative to art labeled as human-made. This was true even when the art in question was largely indistinguishable from the art of famed human artists and when we held the art itself constant (i.e., labeling the exact same piece as either ‘human-made’ or ‘AI-made’).”, Nature, High, direct experiment on bias, 2023-11-03
• “In creative fields, people often fear that using AI erases what feels genuinely human—passion, sweat, 'the struggle.' We’re wired to worship the lone genius and the story of solo achievement, even when all creativity is really collaborative, layered, and tool-based.”, MIT Sloan Management Review, High, business school editorial on psychology of authenticity bias, 2024-09-18