Good day %%first_name%%. A new survey says more than half of creatives who use AI have used it on key client work without telling the client, and most of them don’t think they needed to. Also today: Claude and Codex users getting blocked for hacking their own TVs, AI voices in hoax 911 calls, Paramount’s pitch for cheaper movies and “handcrafted” ones, and an AI that DJs your video games. If today’s lead has you wondering where the line sits, I talked through mine with Roxy Cottontail on her podcast, Roxy’s Tales: 20 Years, 1.5 Million Photos, One Script is how I used AI to sort my NickyDigital nightlife archive, and why the script could find every PBR can but still couldn’t pick the twelve photos for the show that opens Friday, November 13. Your Creative Used AI. They Didn’t Think You Needed to Know. GlobeNewswire * What happened: Envato, the stock-asset company owned by Shutterstock, surveyed 1,033 creative professionals in 103 countries in September and released the results on Tuesday. Among those who use AI, 53% have used it on key client work without telling the client: 46% did so and don’t think it needs disclosing, and only 7% felt uncomfortable about it. Daily use is now 58%, up nine points from last year. * Why it matters: When you hire a designer, video editor or copywriter, you may think you’re paying for a person’s hands. They may think you’re paying for the result. Yesterday we covered bosses trusting employees less when they use AI; this is the same trust problem from the client’s side of the desk. And the rules are thin: even at organizations of 250 or more people, 40% have no written AI policy. * What everyone’s saying: Envato’s own framing is that creatives are staying in charge. CEO Hichame Assi says very few let AI “run unchecked,” and only 4% to 11% let it handle any stage of their work with little input. &Walsh founder Jessica Walsh says that “being able to recognize great work when you see it is not something you can prompt.” Respondents ranked prompt skill last of eight drivers of quality, at 19%. * My read between the lines: The money numbers explain the silence. 49% say AI makes them faster, only 7% say it raised their earnings, and 18% say clients expect AI work to cost less. If disclosure invites a discount, of course people keep quiet. Two caveats: every respondent is an Envato subscriber, a company that sells AI tools, and the most transparent group was creatives over 50, 53% of whom always tell clients. 📖 Further reading: AI Is a Trust Problem, Not a Tech Problem — my notes from the US Chamber of Commerce AI + Work Summit, where every panel ended up circling the same word this survey is really about: trust. The creatives in that survey say AI buys them time, not money. The fix is to spend the time on the work clients actually pay you for. Viktor is an AI agent that lives in your Slack, connects to more than 3,000 tools, and does the chores: the weekly report, the client dashboard, the campaign recap, the bit of code nobody wants to write. Not a chatbot you prompt, a coworker you assign. New readers get $50 off their first month. Hire Viktor → Claude and Codex Are Blocking People Who Hack Their Own TVs 404 Media * What happened: People using Anthropic’s Claude and OpenAI’s Codex for AI-assisted reverse engineering, taking apart the software on gadgets they own, are hitting refusals and account limits, 404 Media’s Jason Koebler reports. One security researcher, log4j, says OpenAI banned his account for “cyber abuse” after he took apart a Samsung TV. A highly upvoted r/ClaudeCode post put it plainly: “The Dream is dead.” * Why it matters: The use cases were genuinely handy: removing ads from smart TVs, reviving abandoned smart-home devices, putting new software on old cameras. We broke down REA, the open-source add-on behind a lot of this, in October. If the two biggest AI coding tools say no, ordinary people lose the easy version of fixing their own stuff. * What everyone’s saying: OpenAI says this was a mistake. Engineer Tarun Gogineni wrote that the blocks are “mostly accidental” and “there is no prohibition against reverse engineering with codex,” and 36Kr reports OpenAI restored log4j’s account with an apology 11 days later. Security consultant Matt Brown told 404 that “the frontier labs guardrails will randomly change without warning on the same model,” so he’s moving to open-weight models he runs himself. * My read between the lines: Koebler’s sharpest point is that the labs protect other big companies’ locks. Bruce Sterling put it best: hacking is “only called ‘reverse’ when somebody who lacks a trillion dollars is doing it.” The practical outcome is the part to watch. An overcautious filter doesn’t stop the work, it moves it to local models with no filter at all, and only the hobbyists without a fancy graphics card get left behind. 📖 Further reading: Neo-Napster: The Compute Revolution Nobody Saw Coming — my April piece on why cheap local hardware keeps turning into AI infrastructure, which is exactly where 404 says the reverse-engineering crowd is heading next. Unlike half the creatives in today’s lead, I’ll disclose everything: this Brief is free and always will be. Members get the paywalled deep-dives that show you what to do about stories like these, plus the full archive. Become a member → AI Voices Are Making Hoax 911 Calls Harder to Spot NPR * What happened: NPR’s Jaclyn Diaz reports that AI-generated voices and background sounds are making swatting calls, hoaxes meant to send police to a home or school, sound more real. In August a bomb threat to Wheatland Union High School in California used an AI-generated voice, a local station reported; classes were canceled and there was no bomb. In a June survey by APCO International and the Public Safety Threat Alliance, about 14% of dispatchers said they had been targeted using AI tools. * Why it matters: A dispatcher has about a minute to decide how to respond, and the old giveaway, a stiff robotic voice, is gone. APCO CEO Mel Maier says the voices “can use words like, uh, or maybe, um,” and he notes that people have been killed and injured in swatting attacks. Dispatchers will still send help to every call, so the cost of a good fake is real police, real panic and real risk. * What everyone’s saying: Florida Institute of Technology professor Brandon May told NPR, “I’m able to clone my voice on ElevenLabs for less than $20.” He says even he struggles to spot fakes, and in a 60- to 90-second call “it is going to be nearly impossible to detect.” APCO is training dispatchers to ask questions so specific that an AI “cannot scoop that information from a public database or simply make guesses.” The full transcript is here. * My read between the lines: Disclosure: the voice on our own podcast is made with ElevenLabs, so I know how good this has gotten. The defense APCO describes is very human: a better interview, not a better detector. That’s the right instinct, because a detector is a race you lose every few months, while questions about the street, the door and the room are hard to fake from a script. 📖 Further reading: I Make AI Versions of Myself for a Living. This One I Didn't Agree To. — my piece on what happens when a working copy of your face or voice ends up in someone else’s hands. The fear was never the copy, it’s who holds the leash. Paramount Wants AI’s Savings and the “Handcrafted” Premium The Verge * What happened: On Paramount Sk… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit artificiallyintimidating.com/subscribe
