Raymond Biesinger is an illustrator and the author of 9 Times My Work Has Been Ripped Off: An Informal Self-Defence Guide For Independent Creatives.<\/p>\n
When creative people hear the word \u201crip-offs\u201d in 2025, their minds most often jump to questions about generative artificial intelligence<\/a>. It makes sense that we\u2019d connect those two things; without permission, Silicon Valley has used our work to \u201ctrain\u201d their AI creations. Additionally, when Open AI made its image-based AI model DALL-E 2 available for all to use<\/a> in September, 2022, it felt like they were out to replace us creatives.<\/p>\n The funny thing is, three years after DALL-E caused untold anxiety in the creative world and Cosmopolitan published the world\u2019s first AI-illustrated cover<\/a>, we still can\u2019t see much evidence of AI \u201clabour saving\u201d in the creative world.<\/p>\n In mid-September, I was walking down rue St-Laurent in Montr\u00e9al and huge poster caught my eye. It showed a competently drawn roller skater in a big-headed and big-eyed style, surrounded by a crowd of other joyous roller skaters. It advertised \u201cRoller-Disco du Patin Libre,\u201d a giant free skating party in the Quarter des Spectacles sponsored by the Ville de Montr\u00e9al and Qu\u00e9bec.<\/p>\n I looked for a signature on that poster, but there was none. Then I eyed the very inadequately drawn people surrounding the central figure. Included in the crowd were: two sets of \u201cmelted\u201d twins wearing the same clothes but drawn at different scales; someone who looked like Freddy Krueger; a lady with no eyes and some ambiguous footwear that seemed like it could\u2019ve been roller skates, inline skates, ice skates, shoes or high heels. Also, someone had two noses, a lady had three eyebrows and a cyclops could be seen at far right. These weren\u2019t \u201ccute\u201d or \u201cfunny\u201d or \u201codd\u201d intentional additions, all of which I enjoy adding to crowd scenes. The tone was more oven-blasted wax museum and low-effort meme, and quite obviously AI-made.<\/p>\n And of course, it was internet catnip.<\/p>\n When I showed it to my followers on Instagram<\/a>, the amount of engagement it garnered was off the charts. The flip side of AI being crammed everywhere is that, when given a chance to express resentment of it, many, many, people are delighted to do so. Commenters also pointed out other instances of AI replacing illustrators, but I\u2019m happy to report that the 30,000 people who saw the free skate image were only able to come up with six examples of paying illustration gigs that AI had scooped up. Also of note: Most of these examples included the AI-users vowing to not use AI again in such a way, and this included the roller-disco organizers.<\/p>\n This is not the vaporization of my livelihood, and realizing this was a relief to me. But if I put on my fantasy accountant hat and look at the bigger picture of AI and economics, I\u2019m convinced a big chunk of the American economy is propped up by misplaced enthusiasm for that technology. However safe my job might be, the economy itself seems due for a big hit.<\/p>\n To dig into some numbers: Open AI is the industry-leader in AI, and they\u2019re worth US$500-billion<\/a>. NVIDIA makes the chips that power AI, and they\u2019re worth<\/a> an enormous US$5-trillion. As the linchpins of the AI world, both of them have had a few incredibly successful years marketing AI as everything from \u201cinevitable\u201d to \u201cmandatory.\u201d It\u2019s no surprise Canadian politicians are feeling the pressure to ensure our country keeps up.<\/p>\n Opinion: We can\u2019t let Canada\u2019s AI moment slip away<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cWe have funded our tech […] in a sprinkler system,\u201d said<\/a> Evan Solomon, minister of artificial intelligence and digital innovation, recently, speaking about the AI sector. \u201cWe have to be more focused. We have to build pools.\u201d After all, no one wants to miss a pool party.<\/p>\n But in August, MIT NANDA\u2019s State of AI in Business 2025 study found<\/a> that among 300 businesses that\u2019d collectively spent US$3-billion on AI pilot programs, 95 per cent of those pilots reported no return on investment. A month before that, Goldman Sachs\u2019 head of stock research reported<\/a> that \u201cdespite its expensive price tag, the technology is nowhere near where it needs to be in order to be useful.\u201d Given that global management consultant firm McKinsey estimates<\/a> that AI data centres alone will require US$7-trillion in investment to keep up with data demand between now and 2030, AI\u2019s profit and loss spreadsheet is looking dismal for the next half-decade, at least. <\/p>\n