The New Yorker's AI illustration of Sam Altman sparks debate about AI's role in art

At a glance:

• The New Yorker published an AI-generated illustration of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, created by artist David Szauder using AI tools as part of his creative process.
• The illustration uses AI's uncanny aesthetic to comment on Altman's "many faces," but critics argue it lacks the depth and intentionality of human-created art.
• The Verge and other publications have strict disclosure policies for AI-generated images, reflecting growing industry concerns about AI's impact on creative professions.

The New Yorker's AI-Generated Altman Illustration

The New Yorker recently published a profile of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman featuring an AI-generated illustration that has sparked significant debate in the creative community. The illustration, created by artist David Szauder, depicts Altman standing in a blue sweater with a blank expression, surrounded by disembodied faces that resemble him but with varying expressions ranging from anger to open-mouthed woe. At the bottom of the image, a disclosure reads "Visual by David Szauder; Generated using A.I." This choice to use AI for such a high-profile piece represents a notable shift in how prestigious publications are approaching creative work in the age of artificial intelligence.

Szauder, a mixed-media artist with over a decade of experience working with collage, video, and generative art processes, has been teaching art and technology at Moholy-Nagy University of Art and Design in Budapest. His approach to this particular piece leans into the unsettling nature of AI imagery to comment on what the article describes as Altman's "two (or more)-facedness." While the image has a painterly quality rather than the typical "slop-style" sheen often associated with AI-generated content, its origins are unmistakable to those familiar with the telltale signs of AI imagery.

The Creative Process Behind the AI Illustration

Contrary to the perception that AI-generated images are produced with minimal human input, Szauder's process was quite involved. According to Szauder himself, he typically begins with a sketch stage before creating final imagery. For The New Yorker piece, he submitted around 15 different sketches to the magazine's art directors, including the one that eventually led to the final "Hydra-esque eldritch monstrosity" that appears above the article. This initial creative input from the human artist is crucial to establishing the conceptual foundation of the work.

The technical execution of the piece involved a combination of traditional editing methods and AI-based tools. Szauder explained that for the final image, he had a clear vision of how he wanted to position the character and its heads. In this case, AI functioned more as a tool than usual, with significant time spent on "shaping the faces, the heads, the portraits, through a combination of classical editing methods (Photoshop, if we want to name it) and AI-based editing." The artist noted that the results were often imperfect or flawed, requiring manual correction and refinement. Considerable effort went into refining facial expressions, developing variations in clothing, and adjusting lighting to arrive at the final image.

Szauder's Background and Approach to AI Art

David Szauder's relationship with AI art extends beyond this single commission. According to a 2025 article on Szauder from Whitehot Magazine, he "managed to devise his own coding system and programming software to generate images based on a particular prompt or archival image materials he feeds into its design." This technical expertise sets him apart from many who simply use commercial AI tools as black boxes. Szauder appears to have a nuanced approach to AI art generation, using "ethically clarified source materials" and expressing concern about the moral quandaries of traditional AI image generation.

When asked about his philosophy on AI in art, Szauder stated, "I strongly believe that even in the age of AI, an image must first be formed in the human mind, not in the machine." This perspective suggests a thoughtful integration of AI into his artistic practice rather than a complete surrender to the technology. His approach represents what AI proponents have long advocated for: using AI as part of a larger artistic toolkit rather than a replacement for human creativity. This balanced approach may be why The New Yorker, known for its high editorial standards, chose to commission Szauder for this controversial piece.

The Debate Over AI in Creative Fields

The publication of an AI-generated illustration in The New Yorker has reignited concerns about the impact of AI on creative professions. For many illustrators, the topic of AI use in illustration is "a cortisol spike" as the article puts it, raising fears about job displacement and the devaluation of human creative work. The concern is not unfounded—there are documented cases of publications replacing human illustrators with AI or requiring existing staff to incorporate AI tools into their workflows to maintain employment.

The issue is particularly acute in the field of editorial illustration, where art budgets are often the first to be cut when publications face financial difficulties. Freelance illustration is already a precarious profession with rates "in a race to the bottom" and significant challenges for unionization. The introduction of AI tools into this landscape threatens to exacerbate these problems, potentially leading to further devaluation of human creative labor. As the author notes, "Art budgets are often the first belt tightened at an editorial publication in the throes of a revenue-bleeding death spiral."

The Verge's Policy on AI-Generated Imagery

In contrast to The New Yorker's approach, The Verge maintains a strict policy on the use of AI-generated imagery. The publication slaps a yellow label on any AI-generated image it publishes and discloses loudly with clear justification whenever it uses AI image generation to assist in creating an image. This transparency is particularly noteworthy given that The Verge's parent company, Vox Media, has an agreement with OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and DALL-E.

The Verge's approach reflects a growing recognition in the tech journalism community of the need to distinguish between human-created and AI-generated content. This distinction is becoming increasingly important as AI tools improve and the line between human and machine creativity blurs. By clearly labeling AI-generated content, publications like The Verge are providing readers with the context needed to evaluate the work they're consuming and understand its origins.

Copyright and Legal Implications of AI Art

One of the most significant legal questions surrounding AI-generated art relates to copyright. According to guidance from the US Copyright Office on the legal authorship of AI-generated images, "No matter how many times a prompt is revised and resubmitted, the final output reflects the user's acceptance of the AI system's interpretation, rather than authorship of the expression it contains." This has led to the conclusion that AI-generated images created purely through text prompts cannot be copyrighted in the same way as human-created works.

The legal uncertainty surrounding AI art creates additional challenges for artists and publications navigating this new landscape. While Szauder's hybrid approach—combining AI tools with traditional editing methods—may offer a path forward, the legal framework for protecting such work remains underdeveloped. This legal ambiguity adds another layer of complexity to the already fraught debate about AI's role in creative fields.

The Future of AI in Creative Industries

As AI tools continue to evolve and become more sophisticated, their role in creative industries will likely continue to expand. The New Yorker's decision to publish an AI-generated illustration for a high-profile piece suggests that even prestigious publications are beginning to experiment with these technologies. However, this trend is not without controversy, as evidenced by the debate surrounding the Altman illustration.

The future of AI in creative fields may depend on finding a balance that leverages the capabilities of these tools while preserving the value of human creativity. Artists like Szauder, who integrate AI into their practice while maintaining a strong human creative vision, may point the way forward. Similarly, publications that establish clear policies and maintain transparency about their use of AI can help navigate this transition more responsibly.

The Broader Impact on Creative Professionals

Beyond the specific case of The New Yorker's AI illustration, the rise of AI in creative fields has broader implications for creative professionals. The technology threatens to disrupt traditional career paths and potentially devalue certain types of creative work. However, it also offers new tools and possibilities for artists willing to adapt and incorporate these technologies into their practice.

The challenge for the creative community is to find ways to harness AI's capabilities without sacrificing the human elements that make art compelling. As the author notes, "The eye of an artist is informed by a lifetime of assembling an internal library of taste, meaning, and intent, none of which are possessed by tools like Midjourney or ChatGPT." This human element—formed through experience, training, and personal vision—remains difficult for AI to replicate and may ultimately be the most valuable contribution human artists can make.

Conclusion: Navigating the AI Art Landscape

The New Yorker's AI-generated illustration of Sam Altman serves as a case study in the complex relationship between AI and creative industries. While the piece demonstrates the potential for AI to be used as part of a thoughtful artistic process, it also highlights the limitations of current AI tools in capturing the depth and intentionality of human-created art.

As AI continues to evolve and become more integrated into creative workflows, the industry will need to navigate a range of ethical, legal, and practical questions. Artists, publications, and audiences will all need to develop new frameworks for understanding and evaluating AI-generated content. The debate sparked by this single illustration is likely just the beginning of a much larger conversation about the future of creativity in the age of artificial intelligence.