AI isn’t replacing artists—it’s a tool that should save us time, while preserving the authenticity of human intent.
That’s my stance, but it’s not a simple yes or no. The real answer lies in how AI is used, who benefits from it, and whether it respects the people whose work built it.
Where I Stand as a Creator
I create photorealistic CGI renders—images built on precision, intention, and the subtleties of light and texture. In my field, AI has shown up in different ways. I’ve seen generated content that resembles my work, but I mainly use AI as a tool for R&D. It can do the heavy lifting in repetitive or laborious processes, freeing me to focus on the creative vision.
So should AI be allowed in CGI? Yes—but not without caveats.
Why AI Has a Place
AI has undeniable strengths when guided with intention:
- It can handle repetitive, technical steps quickly.
- It allows consistent, intentional results at scale.
- It saves time—something every artist values deeply.
For me, it’s about treasuring time. If an AI tool lets me reach the results I was after more efficiently, I’ll use it. That doesn’t mean the artistry is lost—it means the path to achieving it is shortened.
The Risks and Misconceptions
But there are risks when AI enters creative industries unchecked.
- Authorship and ownership: Many AI models are trained on existing artworks without consent. To me, this should work more like a stock footage website: if your art contributes to a dataset, you should be compensated whenever others use it.
- Copyright gaps: Current IP laws don’t seem to protect creators well. I see “AI content creators” publishing freely, but I don’t know if the artwork in those training datasets was ever cleared for use.
- Economic impact: AI heavily affects the business of low-level illustrators, because it can outperform them in speed and output. On the other hand, creatives who adopt AI as a tool, or studios producing premium work, see less direct impact. Where it gets tricky is with middle management, who often jump on the AI hype and assume these tools can replace pipelines. In practice, AI’s unpredictability makes it unusable for organisations that require strict control over their images.
Preserving Authenticity
Authenticity doesn’t lie in whether AI was used—it lies in whether the intent is human-driven. Art should remain anchored in the creator’s vision, even if AI contributes along the way.
That’s why I see AI as a collaborator, not a competitor. It should never claim authorship. Authorship belongs to the creator who sets the intent and makes the decisions.
What Needs to Change
If AI is going to coexist with CGI artists, a few things must happen:
- Fair compensation: Artists whose work trains AI models should be paid.
- Clearer policies: Copyright and IP laws need to catch up with how AI is being used.
- Ethical sourcing: Developers should stop scraping indiscriminately and build datasets responsibly.
- Responsible use: Creators shouldn’t exaggerate AI’s powers or churn out low-quality “AI slop.” Instead, we should guide how the technology is integrated.
Final Thoughts
So—should AI be allowed in CGI?
Yes, but only if it’s treated as a tool that respects the creators who came before it, compensates the artists whose work fuels it, and remains guided by human intent.
AI doesn’t replace artistry. It amplifies it—when used ethically, thoughtfully, and responsibly.
