The job behind the backlash
Hische said she took the project partly because work had been scarce over the past year or two. Her shops bring in little profit: she estimated they made about $10,000 combined last year. She had also invested $100,000 in Studioworks, an administrative platform for creative professionals, and $30,000 in Drawling, a children’s art shop in Oakland where she teaches classes and workshops. Her team has four people: Hische, her mother and two shop employees.
The Meta project paid about $12,500. Hische described that as a good fee for two days of work, but not life-changing money. It gave her more room to pay staff and cover costs, including medical insurance for one employee.
She is a logo designer whose previous work includes Squier by Fender, Jeni’s Ice Cream and Southern Living. Meta’s team had already explored versions of the M, but wanted help refining the letter. Hische said the original was drawn as one vector stroke of uniform thickness. Her work focused on the subtleties of how strokes meet and where small changes in weight can make a letter feel more considered.
The brief was to make Muse feel creative and inviting, rather than cold or overly engineered, while fitting into the same visual world as Meta’s infinity loop.
A disclosure turned into a target
Hische had mentioned the collaboration in her newsletter before the criticism spread on Threads. She said she wanted to share the work and acknowledge that AI was a sensitive subject for her audience. Her followers already knew that her husband had worked at Meta.
She expected disagreement from artists and designers, but not the scale of the reaction. Some critics argued that the issue was ethical, not financial. Others compared taking the job to working for the mafia. Some posted photographs of her home and speculated about her wealth.
Hische tried to respond calmly, she said, but one explanation became a new source of attack. She wrote that the project might help her avoid carrying $50,000 in credit-card debt through the holidays while the shop stocked up on products. A response detached that detail from its context and cast her as a wealthy person spending $50,000 on Christmas.
She said the personal nature of the criticism was harder than disagreement about the job itself. After two days in bed, crying, she began to question whether her past work and free resources meant anything to the people attacking her.
The line between AI and the work around it
Hische’s defence was specific: Meta hired an independent artist, and she did not use AI to make the logo. She thought that was a positive example of how a large company could work with artists. But the response suggested that, for some designers, a company’s association with generative AI can overshadow the fact that a person did the creative work.
Hische acknowledged the commercial threat. She said AI could affect commercial art and agreed with critics who argue that some systems are built on stolen work. She believes she may be entitled to compensation under Anthropic’s settlement because, she said, the company used her books to train its models.
She uses AI for administration, programming and website creation, but not for generative art. The distinction she draws is between using a tool around creative work and using it to replace a person doing the work.
I think that distinction is the piece of the story the backlash makes hardest to hold onto. Hische’s case is not proof that hiring artists can settle the argument over AI; it shows how little room there is, in some creative communities, to separate a company’s AI business from an individual project. That makes the public signal of hiring a human artist less reassuring than Hische hoped.
Daily AI news
Every day we pick what actually matters in AI and explain it plainly — no hype, no filler. Subscribe if you want to follow where the industry is going.
Only what matters — every day
Follow on X