As a writer and photographer, I see at least two implications for AI-generated content. However, I’m not particularly worried about the impact of this disruptive technology on my own work. I’ve developed my own creative language that the machine simply doesn’t speak. What I’m worried about are tectonic societal shifts that could destroy livelihoods, professions, industries, and democratic pillars overnight.

Don’t worry, I’m not predicting the end or demonizing artificial intelligence. But I think we need to move the AI ​​debate from public discourse to action as quickly as possible. We’re not on the brink of a tidal wave – we’re already deep in the sea and there’s no turning back.

Recently I submitted my work flamingo (below) in the AI ​​category of the 1839 Awards, a prestigious international photography competition. The highlight: the image of a seemingly headless flamingo is as real as the belly-scratching the bird engages in while tucking its neck under its torso. I thought that if I could convince the award’s distinguished jury with my entry, I would prove that human-generated content has lost none of its relevance, that Mother Nature and her human interpreters can still beat the machine, and that creativity and emotion are more than just a series of digits.

The jury shortlisted my photo alongside a handful of “real”, AI-generated images, putting it in the running for two awards: the jury’s decision and a public vote. In the end, it won over both the jury and the audience, winning the Audience Award last week and landing among the jury winners. The image is, as far as I know, the first real photo to win an AI award.

Point understood. Now what?

What is real and what is really not

Of course I felt guilty for misleading the judges, but I thought they were professionals who would outweigh this dig at AI and its ethical implications over the ethical implications of deceiving the viewer – which is ironic, of course, because that’s exactly what AI does. And that’s how this twisted conspiracy got started in the first place: In recent years, several AI-generated photos made international headlines for winning photography competitions they weren’t supposed to enter, highlighting the technology’s rapidly increasing capabilities.

Somewhere in between these headlines, it occurred to me that I could turn the story on its head as only a human could and would. Someone might even say that AI gave me the idea, but then someone else would quickly reply that it was the people behind these machines who used them like visual ventriloquists. The fact that there was a panel of industry experts – including members of the New York TimesPhaidon Press, Getty Images, Centre Pompidou in Paris, Christie’s and Maddox Gallery – tells a lot, and I hope in exactly this order:

The story continues

• That nature is still superior to the machine.

• That our brains are not yet adjusted to the new normal.

• That AI images can no longer be distinguished from reality.

The first point is self-evident. Let me now address the other two.

I don’t think the jury is to blame here. The fact that they didn’t notice my little stunt doesn’t speak to a lack of expertise, but to the existence of psychological bias. They just weren’t prepared for someone to submit a real photo in the AI ​​category because they didn’t expect it. Why would they?

But that’s exactly the point: Likewise, we as a society are not nearly prepared to question every image, audio file or video we come across because historically we haven’t had to. And maybe we shouldn’t. Maybe it would be sad to question everything and everyone that isn’t right in front of our eyes. But our critical thinking needs to keep up with the light speed of AI development if we want to stay ahead of it, and that’s an individual responsibility we all share.

As for AI content that is indistinguishable from real content, the message behind my stunt is not very different from that of Berlin artist Boris Eldagsen, who won the creative category of the Sony World Photo Awards last year with an AI-generated image. Except that he came from the other side. Same side, different book. We are not prepared for all the impacts of AI.

Sure, if used correctly, AI could actually give creatives a boost. It does indeed help Eldagsen with his work. But it could also make many of them redundant, depending on how those creatives adapt and what institutional protections we put in place. Some creatives are already using AI to outsource menial tasks and free up resources for their passion projects. Others may have already lost a job here and there because their work seemed redundant to an employer in the face of AI-generated content.

There are many nuances between the black-and-white sensationalist scenarios. For example, a startup that is strapped for cash and doesn’t want to hire a graphic designer can get a free company logo using AI. But the graphic designer just lost a contract. And maybe that same startup has AI create a generic stock image for its blog, costing a stock photographer a paycheck. On the other hand, the stock photographer may have already switched to AI to produce his content much cheaper. This is complex. Things get hectic when we talk about less generic content that intentionally or unintentionally deceives the viewer. Something AI will probably never be able to replace are real photos of a newsworthy event, for example. However, it can create fake photos to invent news that never happened outside of a CPU.

Will AI do more good or bad?

Technology is not inherently good or bad. It is inherently nothing. The way people use it makes it one or the other. If we hadn’t dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima and instead used it to ward off an asteroid approaching Earth, we might have called it something like the Holy Bomb. In its potential to advance humanity or wreak havoc, AI is no different from many other technologies.

But while we lagged behind its disruptive predecessor, social media, this time we should be one step ahead of change. Don’t get me wrong, I love change. My whole life is change. But change requires adaptation. When social media turned the internet on its head, it started connecting people around the world and enabling revolutions like the Arab Spring. Great! But it soon became a tool for spreading fake news that damaged elections and democracies.

AI has the potential to make all of this look like a child’s play and put a weapon of mass disinformation in the hands of anyone who wants it – without background checks. If we want the ability to label AI-generated content, we probably need to label it. The responsibility to do so would fall on governments and the private sector, and would be almost as important as the civic and individual responsibility to think critically and question the seemingly obvious. We need to educate young people to do this.

Reactions to my stunt and what it means

AI-generated content is changing the digital landscape, sparking increasingly heated debates about its impact on the future of content and its creators – including artists, journalists and graphic designers. My joke struck a nerve. News outlets around the world picked up the story, and good old social media spread it. The overwhelmingly positive response left me, well, overwhelmed. There was tremendous support for the idea and the message behind it, but nothing surprised and humbled me more than the response I received from the organizers of the award itself.

After revealing the true nature flamingo to them—and after disqualifying the entry out of fairness to entrants with real AI images—co-founder and director Lily Fierman reached out to them via email, noting that she appreciated the powerful message and that it was an important and timely statement.

“We hope this brings awareness (and a message of hope) to many photographers who are concerned about AI,” she wrote.

Personally, I hope my win was also a win for the many creatives out there, or really anyone who is concerned about AI. This technology is here to stay, and I hope we can adapt and adopt it in ways that are beneficial for everyone.

Other indispensable comments published by Assets:

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com’s commentaries reflect solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Assets.

This story originally appeared on Fortune.com