The New Yorker recently published an AI-assisted illustration accompanying a profile of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, marking a significant moment for one of America's most prestigious magazines. The artwork, created by mixed-media artist David Szauder, depicts Altman surrounded by disembodied faces with unsettling expressions, accompanied by a disclosure: "Visual by David Szauder; Generated using A.I." The decision raises fundamental questions about how established publications should approach generative AI tools and what responsibilities they have to the illustrators whose livelihoods depend on editorial commissions .

What Makes This Different From Typical AI-Generated Art?

Szauder's process differs markedly from the common perception of AI art creation. Rather than simply typing a text prompt into a tool like Midjourney and accepting the output, Szauder employed a hybrid approach combining traditional artistic methods with generative tools. According to reporting on his work, he has "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 represents a fundamentally different creative workflow than the text-prompt-based image generation that has become synonymous with AI art.

Szauder explained his methodology in detail, noting that the creative process began with a clear artistic vision. He submitted approximately 15 different sketches to The New Yorker's senior art director before the final image was selected. The artist emphasized that "for the base structure of the final image, I had a clear idea of how I wanted to position the character and its heads. So AI functioned even more as a tool than usual, especially since much of the work focused 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" . This iterative process involved manual correction, refinement of facial expressions, and repeated adjustments to lighting and clothing.

Szauder

"I strongly believe that even in the age of AI, an image must first be formed in the human mind, not in the machine," Szauder explained.

David Szauder, Mixed-Media Artist

The artist also expressed concern about the ethical dimensions of AI image generation. According to a 2025 profile in Whitehot Magazine, Szauder uses "ethically clarified source materials" when feeding archival imagery into his custom tools, suggesting a deliberate effort to avoid the copyright and attribution issues that plague much commercial AI art generation .

Why Should Publications Care About Disclosure and Process?

The New Yorker's decision to disclose the AI involvement in the illustration reflects broader industry questions about transparency. At The Verge, the publication reporting on this story maintains a strict policy: any AI-generated or AI-assisted imagery receives a yellow label, and the use of AI tools is disclosed "loudly, and with clear justification" . This approach acknowledges a fundamental tension in modern publishing: generative AI can reduce costs and production timelines, but it also raises questions about the creative integrity of the work and its impact on professional illustrators.

The copyright implications are particularly significant. 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 distinction matters because it means purely AI-generated images cannot be copyrighted in the traditional sense, creating a legal gray area for publications that use such work.

How to Evaluate AI Art in Editorial Contexts

• Process Transparency: Examine whether the artist used AI as a tool within a larger creative workflow or simply generated images from text prompts, as this distinction significantly affects the artistic merit and intentionality of the final work.
• Disclosure Requirements: Verify that publications clearly label AI-assisted work and explain the role AI played in the creation process, allowing readers to make informed judgments about the imagery they encounter.
• Thematic Coherence: Assess whether the use of AI tools serves the editorial purpose or merely reduces production costs, considering whether the aesthetic choices communicate something meaningful about the subject matter.
• Source Material Ethics: Determine whether the artist used ethically sourced training materials or archival content, rather than relying on datasets that may include copyrighted work without permission.

What Does This Mean for Illustrators and Editorial Budgets?

The broader context for The New Yorker's decision involves significant economic pressures on editorial illustration. Art budgets are often the first expenses cut when publications face revenue challenges, and freelance illustration rates have been in a "race to the bottom" for years . Some illustrators have responded by refusing to use AI tools altogether, while others have pragmatically adopted them to remain competitive in a shrinking market. A few have found middle ground, experimenting with feeding their own work into AI image generators or using AI-powered tools like Photoshop's background removal feature.

The question of whether AI is "stealing" illustration jobs remains contested. While comprehensive statistics on job displacement in editorial illustration are limited, the trend is clear: publications increasingly view AI tools as cost-effective alternatives to commissioning human artists. This creates a paradox where illustrators may feel compelled to use the same tools that threaten their livelihoods simply to remain employable .

The Altman illustration itself raises questions about thematic coherence. The image uses the visual aesthetic of AI-generated art to illustrate a Ronan Farrow article about AI's disruptive potential, creating a form of metacommentary. However, this thematic alignment may be lost on readers unfamiliar with the telltale signs of AI imagery. The uncanny quality of the disembodied faces and their expressions effectively communicate distrust and instability, but the commentary relies on recognizing the AI origins rather than making an independent artistic statement about the subject .

As publications navigate the tension between cost reduction and editorial integrity, the Szauder commission offers a case study in how AI tools might be integrated thoughtfully into creative workflows. Yet it also underscores the stakes: when prestigious institutions adopt generative AI, they signal to the broader industry that human illustrators are increasingly optional, regardless of whether the final product benefits from human artistic vision .