Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Recent advances in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) have intensified debates about automation, authorship, and labour across creative industries. Yet these discussions are often dominated by disruption and replacement narratives, leaving limited attention to how creators interpret and negotiate AI in everyday practice, particularly in non-Western contexts. This paper examines how Social Cartoon Influencers (SCIs) in Vietnam interpret and use GenAI within their routine creative production. The study combines semi-structured interviews and contextual observations of production workflows through the lens of AI imaginaries. Findings reveal that creators position AI as a creative assistant rather than a co-author, using it for ideation, optimisation and routine tasks, while reserving final authorship for humans. The clear human-AI boundary results from concerns surrounding situated notions of authenticity and ‘national tone’. The paper argues that AI adoption is shaped by negotiated boundaries around authorship, authenticity, and cultural legitimacy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tran et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: