It seems like every business is turning to artificial intelligence to gain a competitive edge. From generating website copy and writing code to creating logos, social media graphics and marketing materials, AI has quickly become a go-to tool for organisations looking to save time and money. But does relying on AI actually help businesses market their brand more effectively?
The honest answer is: sometimes.
For charities, however, my view is different. I wouldn't recommend relying on AI-generated design, especially as the foundation of your organisation's brand. A charity's identity is built on trust, authenticity and human connection; these are qualities that are difficult to replicate with AI-generated visuals.
But why is AI-generated design such a problem, and why am I - and my entire organisation - so strongly against it? Let's take a look.
Why AI-Generated Design Falls Short
Too often, AI replaces authentic, people-centred creativity with generic visuals that feel disconnected from an organisation's mission. In many cases, even a volunteer with a basic understanding of the charity could produce something more meaningful.
Don't get me wrong; artificial intelligence and the tools created in the past few years aren't inherently bad, but using it to replace real people who care deeply for what you are trying to achieve is a quick way for your community to lose trust in your organisation.
In fact, new research from the University of East Anglia studied 171 AI-generated images used by 17 major organisations, including Amnesty International, Plan International and the World Wildlife Fund, along with more than 400 public comments those images generated.
In this research, it was found that fewer than one in five of these comments actually engaged with the humanitarian issue the campaign was trying to highlight. In the rest, people were debating whether the images were real, or picking apart their technical quality. The cause had been lost in the noise.
The Environmental Cost of AI
By 2030, AI's water use will match the needs of 1.3 billion people while its power use triples that of 650 million, according to the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health.
As artificial intelligence becomes embedded in economies, public services, research, communication and everyday life, it depends on a growing physical infrastructure of data centers, advanced chips, cooling systems, electricity grids, water resources, land and critical mineral supply chains. The report shows the negative impact this is having on our planet, and it is worrying.
Every kilowatt-per-hour used by AI carries carbon, water and land implications. The report also shows that AI’s footprint is shaped by both major infrastructure trends, including the rapid growth of data centers, and everyday use patterns, including model choice, output length, modality and the growing use of text, image and video generation.
If we are to move towards a future where we rely more on artificial intelligence in our day-to-day lives, then we must call for a responsible AI ecosystem grounded in transparency, efficiency, equity and environmental justice. We need to take lifecycle responsibility, global cooperation and sustainable use more seriously.
Copyright and Ethical Concerns
AI-generated imagery raises important questions around ownership, consent and creative rights. In the UK, the rules around AI and copyright are still evolving, with the government recognising ongoing uncertainty around who owns AI-generated outputs and how copyright law should apply.
There are also ethical concerns around how AI models are trained. Many tools rely on large datasets of existing creative work, raising questions about whether artists’ work has been used fairly and with proper consent.
For charities, the concern goes beyond legality. AI-generated designs can unintentionally misrepresent communities, reinforce stereotypes or remove the human stories behind the work. A charity's imagery should build trust, not create something that feels artificial or disconnected.
Imagery shapes how supporters understand the people behind the cause. Using AI-generated visuals without careful review risks replacing real experiences with generic representations that may not reflect those that you claim to represent.
Can AI Genuinely Help?
It's not all bad news. There are situations where AI-generated imagery can be ethically appropriate, especially when working with survivors of conflict, abuse or displacement, where photography could risk harm or re-traumatisation.
However, this creates a difficult balance. Many donors still expect to see “authentic” imagery, even when protecting someone’s privacy and dignity should come first. Every organisation should ask: if your audience knew exactly how this image was created, would it strengthen or weaken their connection to your cause?
Personally, I believe AI should be used as a support tool for tasks like brainstorming, proofreading and admin; not as a replacement for designers. Human creativity, experience and empathy cannot be replicated by a machine.
What is the solution?
The research does not call for AI to be banned from charity communications. It's a call to use AI more thoughtfully.
Here are five practical ways your organisation can do just that:
- Create a clear AI imagery policy. If your organisation uses AI-generated visuals, be transparent about when they are appropriate, when they are not, and how they are reviewed before use.
- Train your communications team. Choices around representation (such as skin tone, clothing, cultural details and environments) are not just design decisions. They influence how communities are perceived and understood.
- Avoid photorealistic AI imagery. Images designed to look like real photographs often face the most criticism. More clearly stylised, illustrative or diagram-based visuals are usually easier for audiences to understand and accept.
- Involve the communities you represent. If AI is used to depict people or places, those communities should have a voice in the process. Review, feedback and approval help prevent imagery that reflects assumptions rather than lived experiences.
- Tell more meaningful stories. Charity imagery should move beyond familiar stereotypes of crisis and hardship. The people and communities you support are diverse and complex. Your visuals should reflect that.
Public trust is already fragile thanks to years of failure. AI is not the enemy of good storytelling, but using it as a cheap shortcut to emotional connection is a risk the evidence shows we cannot afford to take; I believe we can do better.
