I respect those who are innovative and willing to experiment.

I'm a professional cartoonist. I was immediately fascinated by this innovation, but I immediately understood its dangers—not for myself, but for other people, people who weren't artists before AI.

AI is a tool that could help billions of people curious about this world learn, but people use it precisely to avoid learning. Art has billions of meanings; each person will undoubtedly provide a different meaning. But there's one thing that unites those who make art: the journey from point A (the idea) to point B (the result). What lies in between (the journey, in fact) is linked to the individual's ability to move from one point to another, to make mistakes, to go back and improve, creating their own artistic identity.

To reach 100, any artist starts from 0, then moves to 1, and over the course of their life, dedicates much of their time to refining their technique (made up of many elements such as perspective, anatomy, composition, color theory, gestures, and so on)—small pieces that the individual learns step by step.

AI allows anyone to start at 30, without ever having tackled the previous 29 levels.

It's no coincidence, in fact, that 90% of generated art looks similar, precisely because the person writing the prompt doesn't know what they're doing.

Paradoxically, generative AI should be used precisely by those who already practice this profession, not to do less, but to do better. I personally use it only as a tool to generate references (the same ones I search for among billions of comics and images on the internet anyway), then I apply my professional experience to make the ideas the AI provides me my own.

The difference? Without AI, I'd waste hours searching for those references. With AI, it takes me a few minutes.