By Janill Jardiel, Motion Designer
Today’s fast moving digital landscape has shown the influence of AI across the content we consume online. What started as a novelty quickly became a multitude of tools widely accessible to the public and across workforces. I’m sure we’re all familiar with the benefits of AI tools, rapid research and turnaround, freeing up time for more pressing tasks, and reshaping how creative briefs are explored. All exciting, but without care, can get messy.
Conversations about the growing use of AI within our studio have led to the following questions: What do we keep human? How do we protect our ‘craft’- not just as designers but as people? And when does convenience slip into compromise?
Our lab session
The studio team gathered for a productive hands-on session to determine our stance on bringing AI to our workflow. The lab consisted of three rounds: a series of rapid responses, a scenario exercise and a reflective close. No slides, no lectures. Just pens, post-its, a bit of music and honest debate.
The first round surfaced our instincts. Revealing worries about ‘sameness’, the dilution of our craft, talent and accuracy. On the contrary, there was positive feedback to the idea of efficient production and broader idea-generation combined with real human input.
In the second exercise we debated real-world scenarios on a scale of ‘Acceptable’, ‘Borderline’ and ‘Unacceptable’. This structure highlighted nuances and questioned morals behind the use of AI in the business. Some situations didn’t sit right, and some responses sat closer to acceptable but with conditions. For example, ‘Using AI to mimic a deceased artists style’ was met with a clear ‘no’ but was close to ‘acceptable’ if it were inspired not mimicked, and used for idea generation purposes.
Another scenario was ‘Using AI to replace the half the tasks of a junior team member’, again the general response was ‘unacceptable’. However, the responses steered towards ‘borderline’ if it meant giving the team member the flexibility to prioritise larger tasks. Ensuring that actions made by AI are reviewed consistently.
We ended the session with a reflection round. This is where the tone shifted. The team spoke less about the tool and more about what makes our work thoughtful, valuable and real. These reflections laid the foundations of our working manifesto on AI.
What we took from the session
We should adapt with the capabilities of AI, but it’s not a magic fix. It’s a tool that either amplifies what we already do best- or, if misused, flattens it. The team’s rapid responses highlighted practicality: speed and scale are welcome for drafting, template building and addressing efficiency concerns. Originality, empathy and problem solving remain firmly human responsibilities.
The spectrum exercise raised both red and green flags. Using AI to replace responsibilities without human verification or to mimic existing styles was met with strong resistance. In contrast, time-saving use cases such as generated project timelines and quick mood boarding were considered acceptable, provided regular reviews are conducted.
Another key point was transparency. If AI is prominently involved in a project, we want clients and colleagues to know. This ensures trust is maintained and expectations are clear at both ends.
Reflections and our studio stance
Conducting the lab session enabled us to form a working manifesto:
“In the Genoa Black studio, we use AI as an extension of our creativity. We employ AI to help us widen our artistic reach with greater efficiency. AI can support our processes, but it cannot replace the human touch.
Our value as creatives come from human judgement, empathy and lived experiences. Strengthened by conversations, research and curiosity that drives us towards ideas. These qualities give our work depth and authenticity.
We use AI openly and responsibly while respecting the creative community.
As AI tools evolve, we will adapt and continue to deliver the originality which defines our studio.”
Where this leaves us
This manifesto is a starting point. We will continually review this alongside any significant AI tools that emerge. The principle stays simple: we choose the path that strengthens the work we do, the thinking, and the people involved. If AI helps lead us to meaningful outcomes, we’ll evaluate how we can use it to our advantage. If it dulls our craft and prevents the parts that matter, we’ll keep exploring using human judgement, empathy and our honed abilities.
