Drawing The Line With AI
I started to professionally pursue Design and Illustration right about when generative AI became widespread, so naturally the question comes up more often than ever: “aren’t you worried AI will replace your job?”
The honest answer is: “sure, it’s gonna replace part of my job, but no I’m not so worried.”
Some jobs in the creative design world will undeniably be replaced by artificial intelligence, many already have. From what I see around me, the work most susceptible to being automated are the routine, low-budget tasks, the kind of work that clients who only value speed and repetition look for. I don’t mean to be demeaning, these tasks are a considerable part of a designer’s job, and particularly those at early stages in their careers. Pretending that these automations are not already happening is naïve, and It’s important to admit that it is disheartening when any kind of human craft is displaced, no matter the kind of work. Every image drawn, every small commission, still carries the dignity of human effort. But I don’t think there's any use in being overly pessimistic.
I think it's really important to take a step back, and to realize that the bigger part of the job is irreplaceable by machine. Artificial Intelligence is not the first technological shift to unsettle the creative fields. Photoshop once raised fears of replacing traditional illustrators. The arrival of the worldwide web redrew the map of how and where creative work happens. Each of these disruptions came with losses and the feeling that it was an unprecedented doom - but we live to tell the story, and to see how each of these revolutions also came with new horizons, new tools, and new responsibilities. History shows us that while certain tasks vanish, the broader field grows: new roles emerge, new ways of working appear, and the one thing that never goes away is the demand for human judgement and accountability.
Original art Ruben Trochet ©️
AI is Here, What Changes?
AI will increasingly handle repetitive high volume tasks, generic surface-level imagery, and arguably, most of the literal image generation. But the very natural fear that because it can replace everything it will, is in my opinion unfounded. When Photoshop first appeared, many feared that its ability to perfect or manipulate any image would make natural photography irrelevant, but instead it pushed the field to revalue authenticity, embrace unedited work, and even set ethical guidelines. In the same way, AI’s capacity to generate and refine images doesn’t mean we will use it to replace human creativity - it simply shifts how we define value, originality, and trust in design and illustration.
In other words, we will never get to a point where we want certain things to be automated: understanding the social, cultural and ecological lived realities behind a brief (context judgement), deciding which narratives to amplify (Ethical imagination) , the story of how something is made (process) and the human work of negotiation and collaboration (Relational Practice). And yes, contrary to what a lot of people might believe, what we want matters a whole lot. The subtleties of demand have direct impact on the market. Take for example energy providers in the UK and the US, many of whom have replaced a lot of their online customer service by ‘chatbots’. These companies have suffered from that choice; seeing that when the client expects human connection and doesn’t find it, they will go elsewhere to find it. Effectively punishing the companies that decide to replace humans where it isn’t wanted. Demand has power in the market regulation.
In my personal practice, all elements are inseparable. Every project I undertake has meaning in every part of its process, hence why I make the decision to use Ai as little as possible. My background, interests, my technical comfort-zones and shortcomings matter to the work I want to create, and no AI can replace that as a whole. Photoshop and the internet have made ‘perfect realism’ accessible to all in the world of arts; has it killed every artist? Nope, it emphasises the ‘human-made’ aspect of artists who create ethically. Some will argue that the arrival of AI is significantly different from the arrival of photoshop, but it is similar in that we have no power to stop it, only to shape it.
Ecological Impact - Navigating the Sadness Without Despair
As much as I sympathise with the values of those who call for banning AI altogether - for ecological or ethical reasons - the truth is that we cannot go back in time with technology. Even if one company were stopped, another would arise elsewhere. There is no such thing as stopping AI anymore. Our responsibility has shifted: it is not about denial, but about accountability and guidance.
This is especially urgent when it comes to ecology. The environmental cost of training and running large AI systems is significant, and often made invisible. Regulation here is not optional, it is essential. If we are to live with these tools, we need global standards for transparency, energy use, and sustainability. Just as we hold industries accountable for emissions or waste, we must hold AI companies accountable for the environmental footprint of their systems, and use our democratic rights to ensure the people in charge of that are doing their jobs correctly.
Of course, this raises mixed feelings. Some use AI as part of their practice - and do so knowing it come with environmental costs. Reconciling that tension is not easy. But I believe the honest path is to acknowledge the contradiction and act within it: to engage with AI critically, using it only where it truly adds value, while actively calling for regulation and accountability. It is not hypocrisy to work with these tools while demanding they be better; it is a form of realism, and perhaps even of hope.
To refuse AI entirely is to fall into denial. To embrace it uncritically is to surrender to recklessness.
The middle path - acknowledging the existence of AI while insisting on regulation and ecological responsibility - is not comfortable, but it is necessary. It is how we refuse despair while also refusing blind faith. We can only hope the development of automation helps us better value the irreplaceable qualities of our human essence.