The problem with AI isn’t that it creates things too easily.
It’s that it revealed something we were never forced to admit before: the copy was never the product.
For centuries, we bundled two different things together and sold them as one:
The work of creation — research, iteration, judgment, taste, failure
The output of creation — the image, the text, the design
We did this out of necessity. You couldn’t sell “forty hours of thinking.” You had to sell the artifact that trapped that thinking inside it. The market learned to treat the copy as valuable because it had no other way to price the work.
Digital reproduction weakened that illusion. AI shattered it.
Once outputs became infinite, instant, and indistinguishable at a glance, the truth became unavoidable: outputs are commodities. They always were. What people were paying for—whether they realized it or not—was the labor that produced them.
Why Creators Are Losing
When a client compares a $5 AI-generated logo to a $500 human-designed one, they aren’t rejecting craft. They’re making a rational decision with the information available to them.
What they see:
Two similar final images
Two wildly different prices
No way to verify what actually happened
So they conclude the expensive creator is overcharging. Not because they don’t value skill—but because skill is invisible.
The market doesn’t currently price work. It prices results. And results are now free.
This has created a perverse economy:
Commodity generators spend seconds prompting AI and charge craft prices.
Skilled professionals spend days or weeks working and get undercut.
Clients can’t tell the difference, so they choose cheaper.
Everyone loses except the short-term arbitrageurs.
This isn’t AI replacing artists. It’s undocumented labor being outcompeted by undocumented automation.
The Real Competition Isn’t Human vs. AI
It’s work vs. no work.
A five-second interaction with a model has five seconds of value.
A fifty-hour creative process has fifty hours of value.
The problem is that both currently look the same at the point of sale.
As long as creators compete on outputs alone, they are volunteering to be treated like vending machines. More expensive ones, yes—but still machines.
A Different Model: Selling Work, Not Copies
The solution isn’t to ban AI or argue about quality. Clients don’t care about theoretical superiority. They care about what they can verify.
So make the work legible.
A professional creator’s real product is not an image or a document. It’s a process:
Research paths taken (and abandoned)
Iterations and revisions
Failed directions and why they failed
Decision points and judgment calls
Time spent thinking, testing, refining
This is the labor AI cannot fake at scale.
When you deliver creative work, you are not delivering a file. You are delivering evidence:
Evidence of time invested
Evidence of skill applied
Evidence of judgment exercised
Now the client isn’t choosing between “AI art” and “human art.”
They’re choosing between:
Kase1111•6h ago
The problem with AI isn’t that it creates things too easily. It’s that it revealed something we were never forced to admit before: the copy was never the product.
For centuries, we bundled two different things together and sold them as one:
The work of creation — research, iteration, judgment, taste, failure
The output of creation — the image, the text, the design
We did this out of necessity. You couldn’t sell “forty hours of thinking.” You had to sell the artifact that trapped that thinking inside it. The market learned to treat the copy as valuable because it had no other way to price the work.
Digital reproduction weakened that illusion. AI shattered it.
Once outputs became infinite, instant, and indistinguishable at a glance, the truth became unavoidable: outputs are commodities. They always were. What people were paying for—whether they realized it or not—was the labor that produced them.
Why Creators Are Losing
When a client compares a $5 AI-generated logo to a $500 human-designed one, they aren’t rejecting craft. They’re making a rational decision with the information available to them.
What they see:
Two similar final images
Two wildly different prices
No way to verify what actually happened
So they conclude the expensive creator is overcharging. Not because they don’t value skill—but because skill is invisible.
The market doesn’t currently price work. It prices results. And results are now free.
This has created a perverse economy:
Commodity generators spend seconds prompting AI and charge craft prices.
Skilled professionals spend days or weeks working and get undercut.
Clients can’t tell the difference, so they choose cheaper.
Everyone loses except the short-term arbitrageurs.
This isn’t AI replacing artists. It’s undocumented labor being outcompeted by undocumented automation.
The Real Competition Isn’t Human vs. AI
It’s work vs. no work.
A five-second interaction with a model has five seconds of value. A fifty-hour creative process has fifty hours of value.
The problem is that both currently look the same at the point of sale.
As long as creators compete on outputs alone, they are volunteering to be treated like vending machines. More expensive ones, yes—but still machines.
A Different Model: Selling Work, Not Copies
The solution isn’t to ban AI or argue about quality. Clients don’t care about theoretical superiority. They care about what they can verify.
So make the work legible.
A professional creator’s real product is not an image or a document. It’s a process:
Research paths taken (and abandoned)
Iterations and revisions
Failed directions and why they failed
Decision points and judgment calls
Time spent thinking, testing, refining
This is the labor AI cannot fake at scale.
When you deliver creative work, you are not delivering a file. You are delivering evidence:
Evidence of time invested
Evidence of skill applied
Evidence of judgment exercised
Now the client isn’t choosing between “AI art” and “human art.” They’re choosing between:
A documented forty-hour creative process
An undocumented five-minute generation
Those are not interchangeable products.