The tasks most easily handed over to artificial intelligence today have long served another, less visible purpose. First drafts, research, mock-ups, corrections and iterations were not merely items to be completed, but everyday training through which juniors learned to distinguish a good-enough solution from a genuinely good idea.
That space for learning is rapidly shrinking, D&AD concludes in its report AI & Creativity Report 2026: The Cost of the Shortcut, published on 18 August with the support of Shutterstock Studios. The research draws on conversations with 197 creative leaders from 30 countries and an analysis of more than 10,000 entries submitted to the D&AD Awards.
The findings do not dispute the value of new tools. AI has made the creative process faster and cheaper, but speed alone has not produced better work. According to D&AD, models without clear human direction generally produce polished, usable and average results. The difference emerges only when technology is combined with craft, taste and decision-making ability.
Data from this year’s entries supports that conclusion. The use of AI was declared in 27.6% of entries, more than double the proportion recorded the previous year. Generative AI was used in 56.2% of all AI-declaring entries, but in 44.7% of AI-declaring work awarded a Pencil. A greater presence of technology, therefore, did not automatically mean greater creative value.
The report specifically highlights the projects Caption with Intention and PainVisible, in which technology did not become the main attraction of the work. It was used behind the scenes to apply solutions focused on inclusivity and precision at a scale that would otherwise have been difficult to achieve.
The greatest cost of the shortcut, however, may not be visible in today’s campaigns. When AI takes over repetitive tasks while agencies simultaneously reduce entry-level hiring, the experience that previously produced seniors, Creative Directors and future leaders begins to disappear. D&AD therefore does not propose preserving junior roles in their old form, but redesigning them around critique, cultural awareness, taste and creative judgement.
The report organises this and other decisions into six areas it calls the industry’s critical reckonings. Alongside originality and talent development, they cover speed, the pricing of value, AI governance and leadership responsibility. It particularly highlights that 70% of agencies have not changed what they charge even though part of the work has become faster, transferring most of the efficiency gain to clients. As a possible response, the report points to shifting the basis of pricing from delivery itself to the quality of the decision and intellectual property.
The problem is also present within companies that still lack clear rules for applying the technology. Many brands and agencies express concern about ethical issues but have not translated those concerns into written policies. According to the research findings, organisations developing their own frameworks and sandboxed environments for experimentation are making clearer decisions and building greater trust among employees.
D&AD places responsibility for these choices directly with leadership. Leaders who introduce tools they do not understand themselves can hardly determine where those tools bring genuine value and where they remove the very parts of the process in which creative judgement is built.
David Patton, CEO of D&AD, described a new kind of weak creative work that is no longer easy to recognise at first glance. “AI has changed what bad work looks like. It’s no longer lazy or derivative in any obvious way – it’s competent, polished, and generic, and it’s the default output for anyone, anywhere. The real problem sits one step earlier: how do you train someone to tell competent from excellent, when competent is now the easy default everywhere they look?”, said Patton.
The Cost of the Shortcut therefore does not deliver a verdict on whether the creative industry should use AI. Its message concerns what the industry does with the time it has regained, the value it charges for and the jobs it changes. If removing routine work also removes opportunities to learn, the price of today’s efficiency may become apparent only when the industry needs to find the next generation of people capable of turning an average result into an exceptional one.
