Will Adobe’s AI agents cause the death of creativity? erichs211@gmail.com (Eric Hal Schwartz) | usagoldmines.com

The promise of a lot what we currently call AI is that these tools can streamline some of the most tedious bits of life. They can summarize that meeting you missed without having to read a transcript or they can trim a video without you manually cutting every silent second. Adobe has taken that to the next stage with its new range of AI agent features.

Adobe’s new agentic AI actively takes on full tasks, not just bits of larger projects. It can suggest edits in Photoshop and make them happen with a click. The AI can analyze hours of raw video footage in Premiere Pro, then make a judgment call about the best clips, assemble a rough cut, and even make color corrections. The AI agents will build an animated flyer from scratch in Express and read your PDFs in Acrobat, highlighting what they believe matters. They will even use them to produce a full sales pitch.

The idea of delegating the mind-numbing roles to AI so you can focus on the parts that engage your mind creatively is appealing. Adobe isn’t wrong when it says this could significantly shift how people carry out these projects. But it’s also a moment fraught with uncertain implications.

The more we let the AI handle the heavy lifting, the fewer hours we spend manually adjusting every image or organizing the minutes of every meeting, and the easier it becomes for those passing out those assignments to devalue the creativity underlying the toil.

It’s easy to tell ourselves we’re still in control. That we’re just tweaking what the machine gives us. But at some point, if all we’re doing is picking from drop-downs and nudging sliders, how much of the “creative” in the “creative process” is left?

Creative business

Adobe says this isn’t about replacing creativity but amplifying it. The AI isn’t the artist; it’s the assistant. And in many ways, that’s true. The AI doesn’t know your brand voice, your weird sense of humor, or your obsession with putting subtle frog references in every campaign.

It can’t feel the rush of a good idea or the gut instinct that something just works. It doesn’t daydream in the shower or scribble storyboards on napkins. It just calculates.

Artists, whether professional painters, commercial designers, or guerrilla documentarians, all understand that the AI’s help is only as good as the human vision. Even so, there are plenty of people who would reason that if an AI can generate 10 polished options in seconds, then it’s not worth paying a human to spend hours coming up with one that may not work out.

After all, why wrestle with structure, tone, or typography when your digital agent is happy to make those calls for you?

In a business context, speed and cost often win out. If the AI can generate something that’s “good enough,” will anyone fight for the slower, messier, more human-made alternative?

If a marketing department can produce entire campaigns in minutes that are on-brand, on-message, and 85% ready to go, how long before creative teams become more like editors, checking the machine’s work rather than making their own?

Uncertain visions

This isn’t happening today or tomorrow or even next year. There are still a thousand tiny decisions that only a human can make, or at least make well. The inevitable mockery and outrage that greets attempts to delegate creative tasks to AI fully makes that clear.

Remember the ad Google had for the Olympics suggesting a little girl use AI to write a fan letter? There’s a reason Google had to answer a lot of questions about the point of that ad. There’s still a soul in the work. But the slope is starting to feel a little slippery.

I don’t claim to have all the solutions, but I do have a few ideas on how to think about AI’s place among creative tools. I do think there’s a place for it, but at the same time, the more people and companies that reserve space in a project for actual creative exploration, the better.

Related to that, talking about the value of AI is certainly worthwhile, but it shouldn’t outweigh highlighting human creativity. AI might be ‘good enough’ almost always, but rough ideas, weird experiments, and even bad drafts are still worth making. Sometimes, they’re the only things worth remembering.

Creative future

Adobe does seem to get this. They talk a lot about keeping the human in the loop in their announcement, about making the creator the director and the agent the crew. They describe how these tools are transparent, responsive, and in service of creative goals. And for now, that feels mostly true. You can reject suggestions. You can still do things the long way. You’re not being forced to hand over the reins.

It still feels like a potential cultural shift as much as a technological one. The future Adobe is working toward is one where creative professionals may be expected to do more, faster, with fewer people, by relying on agents that never sleep and don’t charge hourly rates. That’s great for productivity. Maybe less great for careers built on the slow, joyful chaos of making stuff.

Agentic AI is not the death of creativity, but it might constrain its presence without conscious effort. If we don’t pay attention and let speed and convenience dictate artistic efforts, creativity might become mostly a hobby and not something valued outside of that. If ideas come from prompts and output comes from agents, humans will mostly be there to sign off.

That doesn’t have to happen. These tools can be incredible if we use them intentionally. They can give beginners a head start and help pros focus on what matters most. They can democratize design and storytelling in ways we’ve never seen. I’m sure we can come up with all new ways for creativity to flourish beyond the reach of any AI if we use our imagination.

You might also like

• I refuse to jump on ChatGPT’s Studio Ghibli image generator bandwagon because it goes against everything I love about those movies
• Why Bill Gates is wrong about AI and 3 things he needs to realize
• Meta’s AI chief is right to call AI fearmongering ‘BS’ but not for the reason he thinks