So, what are we doing here?

A reader left this comment about my graphic novel "Just a Little Longer", which is published here.

It is harsh, but I think it is fair, and I want to share it because it raises some important questions. They may work professionally in illustration or publishing; unfortunately, they left no contact details. I would have liked to thank them and ask for further advice.

“The story itself is ok. The last guy appears in a moment with little significance imo, which feels a bit forced.

But as a graphic novel, the graphic part is a complete mess. I don't mind the fact that AI was used, it can be a fine tool. But the amount of mistakes shows a clear lack of effort. The art style changes randomly. There's deformed objects on every page. The font changes in one of the dialogues. Even the page numbers are not displayed properly.

These are not just acouple of small details that the author might have missed. It's the definition of AI slop. It's quite sad to see how quality illustration lost its importance.”

What strikes me first is that the reader accepts AI as a potentially valid creative tool. That gives us a starting point: a comic openly made with AI deserves to be judged on the quality of the work.

I have enormous respect for comic artists, from the Italian and wider European traditions to the American and Japanese ones. Naming a handful would leave too many out. I understand why publishers and readers resist what can look like a crude attempt to bypass their craft and dedication. Can months of work really be replaced by a few hours?

And when I use AI, where does my contribution as an author end, and the machine’s begin?

Then there is the reader’s central criticism: the quality of the result.

Getting AI to follow a clear visual intention is far harder than it looks.

I use ChatGPT Astra Pro for much of this work, and it takes repeated revisions and corrections. Some visual errors (those hands!) remain stubbornly difficult to fix. I am not a professional artist. I work in whatever spare time I can find, and at some point I have to make compromises.

But that is no excuse. Nobody obliges me to publish work that is not ready. The ease of generating images can quietly lower the standard I am willing to accept.

I see the same risk in my professional work as a lawyer. The apparent ease with which AI handles a problem can tempt us to accept an answer before we have properly examined it. Fluency can make carelessness harder to notice.

So what is the right approach? I don’t have the answer. But I want this criticism to change how I work: to look more carefully, to correct more patiently, and to recognise when something needs more work before I share it.

AI is helping me give form to stories I might otherwise never have brought to life.

Perhaps it really can give rise to new forms of art, neither inherently better nor worse than those that came before. But the author still has a responsibility to ask honestly whether the result can truly be called art, or remains a form of creative play.

If I ask readers for their time, I owe them that responsibility.