AI in our creative work
Updated 17th April 2026.
AI isn’t the future it’s already part of the process, and in many cases built into the creative tools we use every day. So we use it selectively and intelligently, alongside the ones we’ve trusted for years, Photoshop, InDesign, Webflow, and now AI. It assists us in exploring ideas, building assets, and moving projects forward in ways that used to take longer or cost more. But it doesn’t replace what we do. Not even close.
Thinking, direction, decisions they’re all human. AI can support parts of the journey, but it’s never the finished piece. For example it can’t take a concept and turn it into a fully realised magazine with structure, pacing, and intent. It can’t build a considered, CMS-driven digital platform that actually works the way it should, not without gaps, and not without someone who understands how everything connects behind the scenes.
And it certainly can’t build a brand.
Granted it might generate a logo, but without the reasoning behind it, it rarely holds up. No real consideration for how it scales, how it behaves across formats, or how it works in the real world. The detail that makes something work, not just look OK.
That’s where we come in.
We use AI to assist us in generating elements, exploring directions, and moving faster where it makes sense, but everything is brought together, shaped, and refined by exclusively by us - human creatives. The final output is always crafted by humans, with the same care, experience, and judgement we’ve always applied. Without question.
There’s also some misconception that AI makes things effortless. It doesn’t. Getting to the right result takes effort; knowing what to ask, what to ignore, what to push further. It takes trial, adjustment, and a clear creative eye. That’s where the craft sits, and that’s the part that really matters.
We’re open about using it there’s no smoke and mirrors. If it adds value, we’ll use it. If it doesn’t, we won’t. It’s as simple as that.
It’s not perfect either, and we won’t pretend it is. AI can miss nuance, produce inconsistencies, or head off in the wrong direction entirely. That’s exactly why we stay in control, reviewing, refining, and making sure what goes out into the world fits the creative vision of us and of our clients.
We use it responsibly. No cutting corners, no copying, no passing something off as considered when it isn’t. The work still needs to be original, otherwise it doesn’t leave the studio. And as a carbon-neutral business, we’re mindful of the environmental impact too*. It’s a powerful tool, but not a free pass.
AI enables us to change parts of the process, not create the result. The value still comes from the thinking, the direction, and the craft behind it.
It’s a tool, not the result.
AI isn’t weightless. A typical short text prompt can use a fraction of a watt-hour of electricity (around 0.0003–0.0004 kWh), while generating a single image is generally higher, often in the region of a few watt-hours (roughly 0.002–0.01 kWh), depending on the model and resolution. For context, boiling a full kettle in the UK is typically around 0.1 kWh, so even image generation sits well below that, but it adds up with scale and repetition.
Water use varies more widely. Some estimates suggest that a handful of AI interactions may use the equivalent of a small bottle of water (around 500 ml) when factoring in data centre cooling and energy production, although this depends heavily on the system and infrastructure used. These figures are based on recent academic and industry research (including MIT, Carnegie Mellon, and Hugging Face) and are intended as indicative rather than exact.