I Hate AI. Can The 
Pioneers Using It Change
My Mind?

 I speak to AI artists and purists to understand whether the
rise of artificial intelligence is the enemy of creativity
or a beneficial evolution.




 



Photo Credit: Gucci’s AI Model in Primavera
Campaign



In an age where Gucci are provoking audiences with sloppy AI campaigns, and my algorithm is infiltrated with videos that are not made by the hands of a human – AI is embedded everywhere. My relationship with it is wrapped in contradictions: its innovation is tangled up with laziness, environmental damage, and theft. But just like the evolution of the washing machine and the mobile phone, technology that has marched humanity forward is inevitable and backed by billions of dollars, which will eventually reframe the way we view fashion and art. 

To understand whether AI is flattening creativity or amplifying it, I spoke to the artists building a career around AI and those who remain at arm’s length. If I will be living alongside AI, it’s worth exploring whether it deserves my fear, scepticism or eventually my respect and collaboration. 

From the rural Italian town of Frasso Telesino, Enrico Massaro and Leonardo Martellini, are building an AI video production platform called Neo. After collaborations with Prada, Nike and L’Oreal swept their portfolio, they went on to become brand ambassadors for Adobe- the leading creative software company. Unexpectedly, AI is new to their creative practices: Leonardo started experimenting with AI in January 2025; and Enrico worked in traditional directing and filmmaking before being acquainted with the technology in 2023. Enrico felt like the “Blacksheep” when he first made the transition. He understood people “looked at those using AI with suspicion, as if it were simply a shortcut.”

The conversation surrounding shortcuts and death of traditional craft is certainly a common debate in the industry. The rise in videos and photographs generated by a non-human entity seems lazy and manageable for anybody to create if all they were required to do was prompt a machine. 



“Not everyone can become an AI artist. It’s a bit like saying everyone can be a photographer just because they can hold a camera.”



However, Leonardo informs me that, “not everyone can become an AI artist. It’s a bit like saying everyone can be a photographer just because they can hold a camera.”. The difference, he explains, lies in the person’s taste, ability, and skillset. They go on to myth bust my previous assumptions that all AI art takes is one quick prompt: “the prompt is not the idea. It is simply the technical translation of an idea that already exists in the mind of the creative.” Only after establishing the creative vision, scripts, shot lists, photographic compositions, do they then turn to AI tools (as well as non-AI platforms) to refine images, animate, edit and colour correct. 





Photo Credit: Neo Artificiale Work, Enrico Massaro and Leonardo Martellini



Evidently this is not a fast process, and it is one treated with care. “We never fully delegate the process to AI — the tool can suggest interesting ideas, but the creative direction always remains ours,” Leonardo informs me. They emphasise, however, that despite the process, creativity should not be valued around the time it took to create a product: “If something takes weeks to create using traditional tools, that’s completely valid. If someone creates something powerful with a smartphone in twenty minutes, that also has value.” 

Ironically, a common theme visible in Leonardo’s work is the exploration of the human experience - one video telling the story of a man shackled to the confinements of the 9 to 5 rat race. A reactive response was garnered when I asked him whether this content can be truly meaningful and relatable if it was created by a non-human machine with AI avatars. He said, “when something truly works, viewers don’t ask how it was made — they simply immerse themselves in the story.” However, for me, this philosophy raises uncomfortable questions. The story loses its powerful messaging when underscored by an insentient avatar. 



“No one can think like a human. No one can try to mimic it. It doesn’t have the soul of the human.”


Similarly, anti-AI photographer, writer and DJ, Zawadi Odari, also explores themes rooted in the richness of humanity including intimacy, desire, and queerness. However, she believes it is the flaws and complexities of the human experience that creates beautiful and unique art: “No one can think like a human. No one can try to mimic it. It doesn’t have the soul of the human. The fact that we cannot achieve perfection is my favourite thing about being creative and human.” She also expresses the importance of human collaboration in her boycott of AI stressing it is her immediate creative circle that inspire her to maintain consistent in her protest.

Humanity versus robots aside, the idea that physical media will become obsolete, leaving those behind to drown in tradition, is something Leonardo and Enrico politely predict will happen: “those who learn how to use these tools and continue evolving will move forward, while those who remain static will struggle more.” 

However, photographer, Zawadi, does not believe we will be playing a game of survival of the fittest anytime soon and “will happily sit with the privilege and luxury of having that choice to not have to adapt to AI just yet.” Just like the resurgence of vinyl, film and print magazines, there will always be a longing for the tangible in the creative industries. 

She also states that she cannot remain guilt free when using a software that is simultaneously used for dangerous means, stating she “feels like [she’s] dancing with the devil” (aka Open AI’s Chat GPT), who recently signed a deal with Trumps Department of War for the support of classified US military networks. We can only assume that the 1,500,000 Chat GPT users that cancelled their subscriptions after this announcement was made, do not want to be associated with the likes of ICE deportations and mass killings in Iran. 

Zawadi goes on further to express her concern for the water and energy consumption of the large data centres – with studies showing that they require up to 5 million gallons of water every day, and making a five-second AI-generated video uses about as much electricity as running a microwave for an hour. Although this development is inevitable due to our capitalist consumption culture, I think it’s important to track who is advancing these developments, who it effects and where it effects. 



Photo Credit: AI Data Centre in the UK, Credit: Richard Newstead, Getty Images




“The creation of your smartphone would have used the same amount of water as 6,400,000 Chat GPT prompts.”




On the other hand, researcher, Andy Masley, boldly claims that the “AI Water Issue is fake” in his latest study, since most of the water used is clean and non-consumptive (it can be replenished and put back into its original source). He argues “If you want to reduce your water footprint, avoiding AI will never make a dent” and asks those who boycott AI to consider their water footprint in other industries they partake in the foods you eat, the smartphone you use, and the jeans you were. His research estimated the creation of your smartphone would have used the same amount of water as 6,400,000 Chat GPT prompts. 

Furthermore, Matthew Drinkwater lecturer at London College of Fashion and director of the Fashion Innovation agency (which aims to bridge the gap between the technology and fashion industries) shows how AI could solve the alarming waste issue in the fashion industry. Before meeting Matthew, I had assumptions about the typical tech evangelists: corporate, rigid, and lacking a soul. Instead, he spoke poetically and passionately about technological optimism and the magic of the virtual world. 

He sees value in utilising these technologies, to “bring production much closer to the point of retail and understand what consumers want,”- using data to accurately predict trends and consumer demand in real time, thus decreasing overproduction. He also explains it gives opportunities for local manufacturing to resurface, particularly to “reinvigorate what used to be an incredible textile trade here in London.”

Being tasked to teach the next generation of talent at the London College of Fashion how to utilize technology correctly at in 2013 was no mean feat, but he feels positive about the future of the creative industries as teaches his student body to use curation and critical thinking rather than passively accept what lies in front of them. For some, the takeover of AI, looks like the dystopian worlds depicted in fictional texts where humans are enslaved by robots. Drinkwater, however, reassures us that “despite the pace of change in technology being very quick… the reality of where those tools end up can be much slower.”

He opens my mind up to the future of AI fashion where he hopes to exit the grey fog of the retail industry which he describes as “very flat and very catalogue-esque” due to globalisation. Instead, AI will bring back personalised shopping, wearable technologies and an expansion in immersive fashion experiences that generate 3D people and products and place them into 3D worlds. This new type of fashion experience, that we are already seeing emerge, goes beyond the physical product, and makes shopping exciting again. 

He concludes with this – “the reality is this is how economies have always shifted. It is not our job to just prop up things that shouldn't exist. The creative industries tend to find a way to make do.” He believes that these technologies, sure, will make it very easy for people to be lazy, but it will also reveal a hierarchy of talent, displaying who is simply copy and pasting data to create art and who is creating narrative driven art that involves a unique timely process to produce something that is distinctly theirs. 

Overall, my scepticism still lingers. The environmental questions remain unanswered, the ethics of data training unresolved, and I will continue to value the depth of human craft over a non-sentient being. Yet, it’s harder to deny that AI is not replacing creativity, but just becoming a part of the process, which I have a newfound understanding for. The future of art and fashion seems to be this uneasy in- between, where traditional craft remains intact but is just levelled up. As with every technological shift, it is no longer a question of whether AI belongs in the creative industries but who it serves and at what cost. It’s going to be particularly hard to revolt against a capitalist framework that strives to commodify creativity - but that is a story to unpack for another day.