When design legends embrace AI, is it a leap forward or a betrayal of everything creative work stands for?

When Pentagram, one of the world’s most iconic design agencies, announced they used AI to generate 1,500 icons for Performance.gov, the backlash was immediate and intense. Artists, designers, and industry insiders flooded social media, calling it a "betrayal of artists" and a "dangerous precedent." But Pentagram wasn’t backing down.

Paula Scher, one of Pentagram’s most celebrated partners, fired back at critics, defending the choice as a strategic, necessary decision. Her unapologetic stance only fueled the debate. Is this a sign of creative evolution, or is it proof that artists are being left behind in favor of automation?

🔥 What Happened? The AI-Driven Icons That Sparked the Outrage

Pentagram’s task was clear: design a self-sustaining website for Performance.gov, a federal platform to track government performance. Part of the project involved creating more than 1,500 custom icons — a monumental task that could have taken months of human labor.

But instead of hiring a team of illustrators, Pentagram used Midjourney, a generative AI tool that creates images from text prompts. This move allowed them to generate thousands of icon variations quickly and efficiently. Paula Scher explained that the purpose of the design was to create a "self-sustaining" system that could run on its own.

"If someone else wants to draw 1,500 icons every other week, they can do that," Scher told Fast Company.

Her words didn't soften the backlash. In fact, they fueled it.

📢 The Backlash: Why Artists Are Furious

As soon as news broke, designers and artists took to social media, calling the move "disheartening," "disrespectful," and "a betrayal of the creative community." The outrage boiled down to three core issues:

1. Displacement of Human Artists

Many critics argued that this project could have been a job opportunity for human illustrators. By using AI, Pentagram effectively cut out a significant source of income for artists.

One X user wrote: “This is terrible and I can’t believe the US government would be okay displacing artists with technology that stole from artists to even function at capacity.”

The fear is that if a design giant like Pentagram is normalizing AI-driven design, other agencies will follow suit — putting more artists out of work.

2. Ethical Concerns Around AI Training

AI models like Midjourney are trained on millions of images scraped from the internet. Many of these images are created by artists who never consented to their work being used as AI training data. Critics argue that using AI like this supports an unethical system.

"They stole from artists to train these models, and now they're stealing jobs too," one comment read.

3. Loss of Craft and Uniqueness

While AI can generate icons quickly, many believe it lacks the soul and depth of human-made art. Instead of unique, thoughtful illustrations, people fear a future filled with bland, "algorithmic" designs.

🛠️ Pentagram’s Defense: Paula Scher Breaks Her Silence

Paula Scher didn’t back down. Instead, she stood firmly behind Pentagram’s choice, emphasizing the need for efficiency and scalability.

Her argument: this wasn’t a "creative" problem — it was a logistical one. The design required a system that could evolve and be self-sustaining. Manually creating 1,500 icons — and constantly updating them — wasn't practical. Scher framed it as a business decision, not an artistic one.

“We created a plan, and it was based around the fact this would be self-sustaining, and therefore was not a job for an illustrator,” she told Fast Company.

This logic didn’t sway everyone. But it did raise an interesting question:

Should every design task require a human touch — or are there some tasks better suited for machines?

🤔 Is This a Creative Crisis or a Necessary Evolution?

The outrage is loud, but it also reflects a larger fear within the design community: Will AI take our jobs?

Pentagram’s move may be controversial, but it highlights a growing reality. As AI tools get better, faster, and cheaper, more companies will be tempted to follow this path. Design agencies, corporations, and government organizations will have to decide if human craftsmanship is worth the extra time and cost — or if AI-driven speed and efficiency will win out.

But here’s the twist: many see AI as a tool, not a threat. Instead of replacing artists, some believe it will shift their roles. Designers may evolve into AI curators, creative strategists, and experience designers rather than pixel-pushers.

📍 Final Takeaway

Pentagram's decision to use AI for Performance.gov wasn't just a creative choice — it was a business decision. But it triggered a much larger conversation about the future of design. Are tools like Midjourney here to support designers, or to replace them altogether?

Paula Scher sees it as the former — a shift in how designers work, not whether they work. But many artists still see it as a dangerous step toward devaluing creative labor.

The next few years will be critical. Will we see design agencies double down on AI, or will public backlash push them to reconsider? One thing is clear: the age of AI design has begun, and it’s not slowing down.

Pablo Segarra, Esq.