Ep 47: Is AI Saving Us or Screwing Us? Let's discuss

Written By Jenna Gaidusek

Listen to the Podcast Episode for a deeper dive

Is AI Saving Us or Screwing Us? Let's Discuss | AI for Interior Designers™
AI for Interior Designers™ Podcast

Is AI Saving Us or Screwing Us? Let's Discuss

The elephant-in-the-room episode — an honest, unfiltered conversation about AI ethics in design, the hard questions Jenna hears at every panel, and the personal non-negotiables she has built into how she uses these tools.

Ep. 47 Solo Episode ✦ Jenna Gaidusek April 2025
This blog was written using AI as a recap from the recording, then edited by the author for accuracy and details.
Key Takeaways
  • AI is not here to replace designers — it is a tool, and its value is entirely determined by the judgment of the person using it. Just because something is possible with AI does not mean it should be done.
  • Ethical AI use requires personal non-negotiables. Jenna does not use other designers' work as input, does not publish unedited AI content, and always rewrites outputs in her own voice. These are not optional guidelines — they are hard rules.
  • The pushback is valid and deserves real answers. Concerns about AI damaging creativity, enabling bad practices, or training clients to bypass designers are legitimate — not marketing objections to be dismissed.
  • AI Day at High Point Market was a proof point: AI does not take over the creative process when used intentionally. It amplified the craftsmanship, storytelling, and innovation that the designers brought to the work.
  • We are the first generation building the norms for ethical AI in design. The designers who engage with these questions now — rather than waiting — are the ones who will shape what the industry looks like on the other side of this shift.

Jenna's Personal AI Ethics — The Non-Negotiables

Before Jenna ever taught AI to designers, she spent years using it behind the scenes — experimenting, testing limits, and learning where it failed. That background is the foundation of her ethical framework: understanding a tool fully, including its risks, before recommending it to anyone else. Her position is consistent: just because we can do something with AI does not mean we should.

Over time she has developed a set of personal guidelines that she applies to her own design practice and content creation — and embeds into every course and training she runs.

✓
Never use other designers' work as input. Using a colleague's portfolio images or design solutions as AI prompts to generate "inspired" variations is not a gray area. It is a clear ethical line.
✓
Never publish unedited AI output. Copy-pasting AI-generated text into blogs, proposals, or websites without meaningful revision is not acceptable — regardless of how polished it looks.
✓
Always rewrite with your own voice and perspective. The goal is AI-assisted content that sounds like you said it — because the substance came from your actual thinking. The AI organized it. It did not originate it.
✓
Prefer tools that cite sources. Perplexity AI is Jenna's go-to for research specifically because it shows where each answer came from — allowing verification and genuine learning rather than accepting confident-sounding output at face value.
✓
Understand before recommending. Jenna did not start teaching AI tools until she had used them extensively and understood both their capabilities and their risks. That standard applies to any tool she promotes.

"These tools are only as good as the person using them. AI can be fast, but it cannot replace your creative instincts, your design training, or your unique point of view. That's where the real value lies — and always will."

— Jenna Gaidusek

The Hard Questions — And Honest Answers

Jenna hears the same concerns at every panel and conference appearance. Her position: these are not objections to be dismissed with marketing language. They are legitimate questions that deserve real, honest engagement — which is why she addresses them directly rather than routing around them.

"Isn't AI taking away from creatives?"
It can — when misused. When AI-generated visuals flood platforms without designer input, when stock-looking renders replace original work, when content mills publish AI text without revision — that does dilute the creative landscape. The answer is not to avoid the tools. It is to use them in ways that require and reflect genuine creative judgment. AI that generates concepts based on your specific client knowledge is not the same as AI that generates generic interiors. The distinction is your involvement.
"How can you promote AI when it could be damaging the design process?"
Because the alternative — ceding this space to people who are not designers — is worse. If experienced, ethically-minded design professionals step back from AI, the tools will be shaped entirely by people who have no understanding of how design actually works. Jenna's answer is engagement: learn the tools, understand the risks, establish ethical standards, and contribute to what responsible AI use in design looks like. Staying on the sidelines is not a neutral position.
"Won't clients just start using these tools themselves and cut out the designer?"
Some will try. And they will discover exactly what experienced designers already know: the tools can generate images but cannot substitute for spatial knowledge, code compliance, material expertise, vendor relationships, project management, or the ability to understand what a client actually needs versus what they say they want. The clients who genuinely benefit from professional design will recognize the difference. The segment who were never going to hire a designer anyway is not a loss.

AI Day at High Point Market — What Intentional AI Use Actually Looks Like

Jenna hosted a full-day immersive workshop at High Point Market pairing AI tools with real-world design applications. The day demonstrated something that the abstract ethics conversation sometimes obscures: when AI is used with intention and guided by people who actually know their craft, it amplifies the work rather than flattening it.

Custom American-made upholstery collections — designers used AI to explore colorways, material combinations, and pattern directions before committing to production samples.
Product descriptions and SEO optimization — AI drafted descriptions from designer-provided product knowledge, then designers revised for accuracy and voice before publishing.
3D models and AR visualizations — used as rapid prototyping tools to evaluate proportions and spatial relationships before physical production.
Product photography enhancement — AI tools used to improve lighting, remove distractions, and create consistent presentation — with designer oversight at every step.

The through-line: AI did not take over the creative process in any of these applications. It served as a capable collaborator that took direction well and executed faster than manual methods — but the decisions, the standards, and the vision belonged to the designers in the room.

"AI didn't take over the creative process — it amplified it. It supported craftsmanship, storytelling, and innovation in ways that saved time without sacrificing vision."

— Jenna on AI Day at High Point Market

What We Actually Control — and Why That Is Enough to Matter

The pace of AI development is not something any individual designer controls. The investment decisions, the training data choices, the regulatory environment, the energy infrastructure — all of that is happening at a scale far above any one practice. Acknowledging that honestly is not defeatist. It is clarifying, because it focuses attention on what actually is within reach.

How We Use AI in Our Practice
Every ethical choice — what gets fed to which tools, what gets published, what gets disclosed — is entirely ours to make. That collective of choices shapes norms for the industry.
How We Educate Ourselves
Staying informed is a professional responsibility. Designers who understand the tools, their capabilities, and their risks are better positioned to use them well and push back on misuse.
How We Talk About AI with Peers and Clients
The conversations designers have — at conferences, with clients, with junior staff — are how professional norms get established. Honest, informed voices matter here.
What Innovation We Support
Which tools we subscribe to, recommend, and invest time in signals demand. Designers who choose tools with ethical commitments and transparency are voting with their attention.

Jenna's framing throughout this episode: the choice is not between AI and no AI. It is between being a passive recipient of whatever AI becomes and being an active voice in shaping what it looks like in this industry. The designers who show up to that second option are the ones who will matter on the other side of this shift.

Frequently Asked Questions
Jenna's framework comes down to four areas: source integrity (do not use other designers' work as input), output ownership (do not publish unedited AI content as your own), voice preservation (always rewrite with your actual perspective and expertise), and tool selection (prefer tools that are transparent about their sources and limitations). These are not aspirational guidelines — they are practical non-negotiables that prevent the specific harms AI misuse causes in the design industry: IP violations, diminished originality, and loss of the professional voice that makes your work worth hiring for.
Yes, with the right framing and intent. Using AI-generated visuals as early-stage concept communication — showing a direction, exploring a feeling, gathering feedback before committing to detailed work — is a legitimate and valuable application. The ethical requirements: be transparent with clients about what they are looking at (AI-generated concept, not a render or a specification), ensure the visuals reflect your actual design intent rather than generic AI output, and never present AI images as the finished work or as accurate spatial/material representations. The tool should serve the conversation, not replace the design judgment behind it.
There is no universal standard yet — which is part of why the design community needs to establish one proactively. Jenna's approach: be transparent about process without making it the centerpiece of every conversation. If you used AI to generate concept visuals, say so when presenting them. If a proposal draft was AI-assisted and then significantly revised by you, you do not necessarily need to itemize every tool involved, but you should be honest if asked. The key principle: clients should not be misled about what they are receiving. AI-assisted work that has been thoroughly reviewed, revised, and takes full professional responsibility is still your professional work.
Training and running large AI models requires significant computing power and energy — this is not a rumor, it is a documented infrastructure reality. For designers who already prioritize sustainable sourcing, waste reduction, and energy-conscious design decisions, this is a relevant consideration. The practical action is the same one Jenna recommends for any sustainability question in design: stay informed, ask the right questions of the companies you work with, and where you have a choice between comparable tools, factor environmental commitments into that choice. Progress is happening — NVIDIA and others are developing more efficient on-device chips — but the industry is not there yet.
With genuine acknowledgment that the concern is not unfounded — and then a reframe. Some of what AI threatens is the low-effort, commodity tier of design service that was already under pressure before AI existed. The work that is genuinely threatened is work that could be replaced by a capable enough tool — which means work that did not require deep expertise, taste, spatial judgment, client empathy, or professional accountability to begin with. The work that requires all of those things — which is the work most designers are actually proud of — is not under threat. The professional risk is real for those who do not engage with the technology. The solution is not to avoid it. It is to use it in ways that demonstrate exactly what AI cannot replicate.
Ethical AI Leadership
The Designers Who Shape This Conversation Are the Ones Who Show Up
Jenna's workshops and certificate program are built on the same ethical framework she lives by — tools used with intention, voice preserved, and professional judgment kept at the center of every application.
Certificate Program ↗ Workshops ↗

Disclaimer: This blog was written using AI as a recap from the recording then edited by the author for accuracy and details.

 
Jenna Gaidusek
Previous

Ep 48: From GPTs to AGI: What’s Next?
Next

Ep 46: How AI Inspo May Help the Static Real Estate Market