Yes — I use AI.

To begin with, I don’t use AI just to say “wow, that’s a lot — AI, do it and done!” Instead, I see AI as a tool to improve workflows and take over tasks that I can do myself but that take a lot of time. The time I save through this, I don’t want to waste — I want to use it to dive even deeper into the subject and engage more thoroughly with what I’m doing.

Now, AI already can do so much that one could argue it might harm jobs in the long run — and I get that. I understand that concern, and I’m not happy about it either. There are things I’m personally sad that I can no longer do myself. I’ve worked extensively with media and spent most of my studies creating digital content, and manual workflows often remain the more time‑consuming and labor‑intensive option by a significant factor — to the point where doing things by hand no longer makes practical sense.

That makes me somewhat sad, and it’s part of why I chose to pursue my master’s. I find efficiency to be a very important part of work and I struggle with workflows when I know I could reach a similar quality outcome in much less time, especially when there’s a lack of time — and let’s be honest, there certainly is in FabAcademy.

For these reasons, I use AI where I believe it costs little in quality but saves significant time.

At the same time, ignoring AI doesn’t make the topic go away. AI is already a daily part of work in 2026 and likely will remain so long‑term. As someone who is technically curious and comfortable with new technologies, and in order to stay competitive and continue learning, I want — and need — to work with AI for that reason as well.

There are many reasons why it’s important to have an understanding of AI and to be able to work with it — whether that’s prompts, current software, or other related topics. And even if AI doesn’t become as big a topic as it seems today, it will nevertheless remain a useful tool, as it already is now. It’s unlikely to go backward.

So if you read something on my site about AI, please don’t think it means I didn’t engage with the topic — rather, that I have engaged with it very deeply. I always look at the underlying mechanics and how to reach the goal, whether an example was created with AI or not.

Still, it’s important to me that content is clearly labeled. AI can be misleading or create uncertainty — and while I don’t think that applies strongly to what I post, having a consistent approach is important. That’s why you’ll see this icon across my entire site. Whenever you see it, you’ll know that the content was (mostly) generated with AI.

You’ll also be able to see the model used, the prompt, and, where applicable, additional settings like “Thinking.” Even though I personally value reproducibility of results, it’s the case that due to seeds, daily model updates, existing context, personal model settings, and even the way thinking models process information, outputs often differ from mine. The prompts are meant to act as a thought scaffold from start to goal and to provide as much transparency as possible — but they unfortunately cannot guarantee 100 % reproducibility of results.