A.I. is a Choice, Not a Necessity…!
Our case against using generative AI for clients’ commercial art and animation is that the technology was built by ingesting creative work without consent or compensation. That creates a parasitic system that undermines the livelihoods of the artists whose work trained it. Efficiency may be tempting, but many critics say and we agree, it leads to a “race to the bottom” — lowering quality, devaluing human craft, and producing formulaic, unoriginal output.
This central concern is supported by several closely related points:
Existential Threat to Careers:
Generative AI is not merely a new tool, but a replacement mechanism that enables companies to cut costs by eliminating human illustrators, designers, and animators.
Unauthorized "Ingestion" and Intellectual Property:
Models are trained on massive datasets scraped from the internet without consent, credit, or compensation, leading to active lawsuits regarding copyright infringement and IP theft.
Moral Injury and Loss of Human Soul:
The creative process—the "blood, sweat, and tears" of human effort—is replaced by a split-second button press, stripping art of its emotional depth, personal experience, and meaning.
Legal Uncertainty and Lack of Ownership:
Under current US law, works created solely by AI cannot be copyrighted, creating significant risks for corporations that need to protect their branding and assets.
Homogenization and Quality Decline:
Because AI relies on existing, popular patterns, it tends to produce safe, formulaic, and derivative work rather than true innovation, threatening to "impoverish our visual culture".
Environmental Impact:
Training and running these models requires massive amounts of energy and water, creating a high environmental cost that is often ignored in favor of speed.