In this episode, Konrad Olsson speaks with Stefan Ilkovics, an AI and creativity expert working across fashion, beauty, and luxury. Stefan is currently Creative Director and AI & Innovation Lead at Puig, and co-founder of the generative AI studio Naughty Society. Over the years, he has worked with brands including Cartier, Hermès, A.P.C., Chanel, Saint Laurent, Dior, Nike, and H&M.
The conversation explores where AI stands in spring 2026, how it is changing creative work, and why the real challenge for brands is not speed, but direction. Ilkovics argues that AI should not be treated as a creative force in itself, but as a tool that can extend human vision, if used with discipline. He also reflects on the growing risk of sameness, the future role of creative teams, and why strong brand understanding matters more than ever in an era of unlimited content production.
Key takeaways
AI is not creative. It is a tool
One of the clearest points in the conversation is Ilkovics’ insistence that brands need to stop confusing technical output with creativity. In his view, AI can generate polished imagery, but it has no intention, taste, or understanding of cultural meaning. As he puts it, “AI is not creative. Point blank.” That distinction matters because it places responsibility back where it belongs: with the people shaping the brand, the concept, and the final expression.
The real challenge is not speed, but trajectory
Ilkovics argues that the industry has largely moved past the question of whether AI matters. The pressure is now on to adopt it quickly, but speed alone is not a strategy. He warns that brands are at risk of moving fast without being clear on what they are trying to build. “To win at AI, it’s not so much about accelerating… it is about trajectory,” he says, pointing to the need for stronger judgement, clearer priorities, and better organisational direction.
Creative direction becomes more important when production limits disappear.
A recurring theme in the episode is that AI removes many of the traditional production constraints that used to shape campaigns and content. That creates new freedom, but it also raises the bar for decision-making. As Ilkovics notes, “Now I can produce any image I can imagine,” which means the real question is no longer what is possible, but what is right for the brand. In that environment, the role of the creative director becomes more central, not less.
Brands risk producing more content, but less meaning.
The conversation also addresses the likely flood of AI-generated material across digital platforms. Ilkovics expects a sharp increase in content volume, but warns that much of it will be visually competent while lacking originality, emotion, or clear brand positioning. He describes a future of “the average of the average of the average”, where models train on synthetic outputs and sameness compounds over time. For brands, the real task is not simply to make more, but to cut through noise with something distinctive.
The best use of AI starts with the brand, not the tool.
A strong closing theme is that AI should never be the starting point for a campaign or creative brief. Ilkovics is sceptical of projects built around the novelty of the technology itself, because that often leads to work that is driven by capability rather than meaning. “You shouldn’t come by saying, ‘I want to do something with AI,’” he says. Instead, brands should ask what they would create if production constraints disappeared, and then decide whether AI is the right way to realise that vision.