The New Yorker just put AI-generated art on a Sam Altman profile and the panic says more about our fear of change than the actual work.
The Summary
- The New Yorker used AI-assisted illustration by David Szauder for their OpenAI CEO profile, complete with a disclosure that it was "Generated using A.I."
- The artist isn't some prompt jockey. He's been working with generative art processes for over a decade, long before ChatGPT made everyone an art director.
- The real story isn't the image. It's the reflexive horror at seeing "AI" next to art in a prestige publication.
The Signal
David Szauder's illustration shows multiple disembodied Altman faces hovering around the CEO's head, one cradled in his hands. Creepy? Sure. That's the point. The disclosure that it was made with AI caused immediate backlash from illustrators and art directors online, treating it like The New Yorker crossed a picket line.
But Szauder isn't a tech bro with a Midjourney subscription. He's been making collage and generative video work for over a decade. His process predates Stable Diffusion. The AI is a tool in a larger practice, not the practice itself.
"The artist isn't some prompt jockey. He's been working with generative art processes for over a decade."
The panic reveals something worth watching: we're still treating AI like a binary. Either you're a "real" artist or you're automating creativity away. This is the same false choice people made about photography in 1850, Photoshop in 1995, and digital music production in 2005. New tools don't replace craft. They change what craft means.
What makes this notable is the venue. The New Yorker isn't Buzzfeed slapping DALL-E thumbnails on listicles. It's a publication that pays illustrators actual money for actual assignments. If they're running AI-assisted work with full disclosure, that's a signal about where editorial standards are heading, not falling.
The Implication
Watch what happens next at major publications. If this becomes normal, expect clearer taxonomy around AI use. Not "AI art" versus "real art," but disclosure standards about process and tool use. The interesting question isn't whether AI belongs in illustration. It's whether we can evolve past treating it like contamination.
For illustrators: the threat isn't artists like Szauder using AI as part of a developed practice. It's publications deciding they don't need to commission work at all when they can generate it for free. Fight for the assignment, not the tool.