Goodbye Execution, hello Ideas!
Benchy #6 -> Ghibli and copyrights; AI is NOT art [or is it?]; Between the Collapse and the Reinvention; What are we building with the time AI hands us?; Three proposals for a more human future
We’ll start with Ghibli—but don’t be fooled. This is a text that travels far.
From aesthetics and copyright to creativity and labor, it ends with three clear proposals on how we should rethink the future of work in the age of AI.
So to kick it off, a bit of context. This week, yet another controversy took over the AI conversation—sparked by the launch of OpenAI’s new image-generation tool, now fully integrated into ChatGPT.
This integration between GPT-4o and image creation allows the AI to interpret visuals with much more accuracy and context—significantly boosting the quality of what it generates.
To clarify things, I asked ChatGPT itself to explain how the integration works—through an infographic. [Image is impressive, even with some flaws.]
Ghibli and copyrights
The new image tool integrated with GPT-4o is so impressive that within days, its first viral use case was from users converting their photos into caricatures in the style of Studio Ghibli and its creator Hayao Miyazaki.
Since AI learns by referencing and analyzing what already exists, it naturally absorbs the most iconic and unique styles. Studio Ghibli is among them—alongside shows like The Simpsons or Adventure Time. The more widely cited and culturally present a work is, the more likely its aesthetic will be learned and reproduced by AI. We also have to say this went viral, but it's far from new, TikTok had tons of similar filters years before Open AI jumped at it.
But is this considered theft? The answer sits in a legal gray area—maybe yes, maybe no.
When it comes to image usage rights, there’s a significant gap in current copyright law. Most legislation doesn’t explicitly say whether this kind of use is permitted or not. Fan art created by artists with no commercial intent is often tolerated—and sometimes even encouraged—by brand owners, as it helps keep their franchises alive. It’s often in the rights holders’ interest to foster this type of creative expression. Still, the situation is so ambiguous that the same owners might later ask for those images to be taken down, especially if they feel their copyright is being violated or their intellectual property misrepresented.
Still on the subject of appropriation: when it comes to the datasets used to train AI, the more content a work has and the more popular it is, the easier it is for that style to be absorbed by the system—especially if the images are widely shared and publicly available online. This has become one of the biggest concerns among artists. And again, it reveals a legal blind spot: there are currently no laws specifically addressing this issue, particularly when the material is openly posted on the internet.
It’s also worth drawing a parallel with another ongoing and crucial debate: the regulation of social media. Should Facebook be held accountable for the content created by its users? And similarly, should OpenAI be held responsible for how people use its tools?
Regulation is crucial but still under discussed. We need to shift some of our attention away from the companies themselves and shine a light on the regulators behind the scenes.
So what does ChatGPT itself have to say? When asked directly about the issue, it provides clear guidelines outlining what is—and isn’t—allowed.
And what about Studio Ghibli—how have they responded to all this? As of April 2025, no official statement has been released. If, even a week later, images in their style are still being generated—and even though Miyazaki himself had previously expressed disapproval of AI—it doesn’t appear to be something the studio is actively opposing.
After all, this kind of virality is something most brand owners dream of. But legally speaking, only Ghibli should have the right to explore any financial exposure tied to their intellectual property. So if profit starts showing up, this quickly becomes a much bigger conversation.
A quick look at Google Trends already shows a huge spike in searches for Studio Ghibli and its films. Even if only a small portion of those curious viewers actually end up watching a Ghibli movie, the momentum is massive enough to boost the studio’s visibility and content. I’d even say that all of their films are likely seeing more views—helping Miyazaki’s work reach new audiences and pop into different cultural bubbles.
As for ChatGPT and open AI, the impact speaks for itself—the new tool drove over 1 million new users to the platform in just one day. That’s a massive success and a clear sign of user approval, to how the platform has been developing, despite the loud criticism echoing through certain internet bubbles.
AI is NOT art [or is it?]
Within this same debate, the old argument returns: “AI IS NOT ART.” But first, let’s be clear—AI doesn’t create art on its own. [In some cases it might, but that’s a discussion for another time.] In most cases today, it’s the human—the creative mind behind the prompt—who is making the art. The AI is just the tool. The intention still comes from a person.
The one who created the famous image of the pope wearing a puffer jacket was not an AI, but the intentionality of a human behind the work. AI was just the tool. The human is still present in the work.
But if we take a closer look at what art really is, what do we find?
“The work of art is not the object, but the experience it generates.”
— John Dewey, philosopher and educator, author of Art as Experience
Art isn’t defined solely by how it’s executed. The idea, the intention, the expression, and the cultural impact of the artist often matter more than the technique itself.
“Art is a human activity that consists in deliberately creating objects that influence the senses, emotions, and intellect.”
— Denis Dutton, philosopher
If a human uses AI as a tool to express an idea, stir emotion, provoke reflection, or simply create something beautiful—that can absolutely be considered art. Just like using watercolor, a camera or an artwork within Photoshop.
So, is AI art? YES, IT IS—though not always, of course. Just as a paintbrush can either create a masterpiece or simply paint a wall, AI’s artistic value depends entirely on the intention and creativity behind its use.
In recent years, a number of AI-based artists have gained recognition, with some of their work featured in museums around the world. One notable example is Nice Aunties, an artist whose work uses surrealism and humor to reimagine the archetype of “the auntie” in playful and thought-provoking ways.
Between the Collapse and the Reinvention
We might not notice it, but we’re wired for comfort. Any innovation that disrupts our routines—like AI—pulls us out of that space, which is why it feels so hard to accept and adapt to.
Throughout history, professions have always been challenged and reshaped.
Think of the rise of the printing press: while parts of Asia had already explored movable type, it was its spread through Europe that triggered global shifts in how knowledge was shared. In many Islamic cultures, where oral education and recitation were deeply rooted, the adoption of printing was slow—often met with hesitation and negotiation. A clear reminder that deep traditions don’t disappear easily, even when new tools arrive.
Every disruption forces us to reexamine our craft—from the scribes of not-so-distant history to today’s evolving definition of what it means to be an artist.
Building on that idea: AI is great at imitation, but it still struggles with originality, intention, and emotional expression. As long as artists remain in control of the ideas, they’re unlikely to be replaced by machines. The same goes for other creative roles—like designers and writers.
Given that here is a thought:
The world is evolving to a place that will value ideas more than execution.
Why is that? Because poor execution can still block a good idea from spreading—and that’s where AI truly shines. It levels the playing field by lifting the baseline of delivery. We’re no longer stuck in mediocrity, but operating at a new “average.” On a comparison still, no amount of polish can rescue a poorly formed idea.
That unsettling feeling? Also comes from this space—”we’re the ones who studied, who built careers over decades, who mastered our craft stroke by stroke. And now, we’re competing with anyone who has a good idea and can bring it to life overnight.” In a world that was already competitive, will it get tougher? The unanimous answer is: absolutely.
We’ll have to keep stepping out of our comfort zones—creating, refining, and learning as if the journey never ends.
But here’s a reminder: humans are still the ones who decide what holds value. That’s why handmade art will ever lose its worth. But it will always needs to build up on originality so it differentiates even more and yes it will lose ground in spaces where within some commercial needs specially in those that outweigh artistic authorship.
The same happened in the 19th century with the arrival of photography.
Painters who relied solely on capturing real-life imagery felt threatened—and with reason. Photography quickly replaced them in many commercial contexts, especially portraiture. But that same disruption also set painting free. It pushed artists to innovate, giving rise to new styles that prioritized perception, emotion, and abstraction.
Once again, we’re reminded: ideas and creativity outlast any one method of execution.
In the end, specialists still have a solid place at the table. Decades of experience don’t lose their value. In fact, studies show that AI can enhance performance not only for beginners, but also for seasoned professionals.
Experience makes us better at using any tool. We know what we’re looking for—and we have a clarity that only time and maturity can provide. That kind of experience, especially the tacit knowledge, is essential for mentoring and leading younger minds. No matter how advanced a tool is, relying on it blindly is still a risk.
What are we building with the time AI hands us?
In a world where everything feels increasingly average— average becomes the new mediocre—fresh ideas can appear out of nowhere. That’s why it’s never been more critical to keep thinking minds in motion.
So when companies talk about mass layoffs in the name of efficiency, they’re ignoring the obvious: we’re already burned out and AI won’t save us—unless we decide what we want to save.
Teams are stuck in survival mode, constantly firefighting and rushing to meet next week’s deadline, instead of planning ahead and living healthier lives that actually lead to better ideas and businesses—just look at the proven results of 4-day workweek experiments.
Leaders need to step away from hands-on execution and refocus on leadership itself—on people, vision, and building healthier long-term outcomes. Companies must understand that expecting a single leader to do it all only leads to deeper exhaustion—for them and for already burned-out teams.
AI shouldn’t be treated as an excuse to cut costs and reduce headcount, but as a way to support a society that’s mentally overwhelmed. We weren’t built to process this much information. If AI can ease the workload, then companies should take a more strategic view in the face of growing competition and the collapse of outdated models. Replacing teams of 15 with one or two overworked survivors is not just unsustainable—it’s harmful to those who stay.
We need to stop acting like machines—churning out reports and staying stuck in execution. The time AI gives us back should be used to elevate our thinking, grow the business, and stand out in a sea of mediocre work that only ticks the boxes. In this context, mass layoffs turn people into tool operators instead of strategic assets. What truly moves a company forward isn’t just output—it’s critical thinking and ideas.
Three proposals for a more human future with AI
To finish, let's think forward and push ideas that will make the change. We’re living in a society that’s mentally exhausted—sick from the pressure to always perform, optimize and produce. AI can help relieve that pressure, but only if we resist the temptation to use it for more of the same. We need to stay strong in our intention: use AI to support humans as a tool that allows us to have better life quality, enhancing our mental health.
🟣1: Rebuild how companies work
In a world where everything can look the same — it's time to redesign work. Companies will only stand out by giving people time to think differently, to finally have the time to pan and deliver. Creativity and mental health, not cost-cutting, are the new advantages.
🟣 2: Defend creative time
Defending creative time isn't about slowing down.
It’s about making space for the kind of thinking that actually drives results—because in a new world real world where we need to be different and above average to set us apart, performance will come from empowering minds.
🟣 3: Make regulators act
AI can reshape economies, culture and labor overnight.
So why are our laws still stuck? It’s time we hold regulators to the same standards of urgency we expect from startups. [Maybe AI can help with that as well!]