I was traveling, and this one city I was going through had SD images everywhere as advertising for their downtown, and the quote was “celebrate what’s real”. They had the audacity to use AI images and tell me to celebrate what’s real. Wtf
Edit: needless to say, I did not go to their downtown.
Nah, it’s not that they can’t afford professional artists, it’s that they don’t want to.
Which is far worse of course.
When a company uses ai I put them on my blacklist, I don’t touch their slop ever again.
When people use ai I know to never interact with them, because it’s a waste of my time.
When a user online posts ai slop, I block them so their shit doesn’t show up in my feed.
I used ai image gen back when it first released. I don’t post it, and I was looking for it to do something very specific that it couldn’t, and probably still can’t, do. Fish fins, for example, are a struggle when applied to humans, so mermaids end up a mess. At least back when I was using it to muse, it was a good MUSE, but horrible at making what I had in mind (I’m aphantasic, so I’m not that picky with visuals, but these suuuuucked)
I think I’m separate from what you describe, tho, because I’m using it as a muse (good proportions in different positions and stuff like that) rather than it doing the work for me? Plus being just that once; I’m not doing this actively, but it did help.
But idk, I’ve used ai image gen. I recognize I’m part of the problem, but in my defense that’s all I used it for, and never since that first muse session when ai images were -the thing of the week- where I tried to get ai to do basic things and it couldn’t so I asked for increasingly niche images and it failed at basically every mid-step
deleted by creator
AI would give you the finger if it could draw one.
Haha… I started an LLC on Wednesday. I had AI generate a (temporary) company logo for me.
Yesterday, I sent that logo to a real artist and asked them to re-make and improve it because I’m not planning on using AI shit.
If I can afford to spend $75 on a side hustle, any real company that I’m buying shit from better at least be doing the same.
As a graphic designer I… don’t hate that AI exists for that use case. It’s admittedly a pretty nice way to iterate on rough ideas for me and my clients so we can get to a common understanding. But it’s only going to get them 50% of the way there as it is now and I hope that people continue to recognize that.
Except, you literally are describing using AI to save yourself the cost of several rounds of revisions with a graphic designer…
… and then paying a designer…
It’s a side business with $0 in income. There’s no fucking way I’m going more than 2 rounds on revisions as it is. If it’s more than that, I’ll do the art myself and it’ll be shit; but better than nothing. Simply not worth it at $0 income. If AI wasn’t an option to get things started, the artist wouldn’t be getting paid at all because I wouldn’t be hiring an artist.
I don’t think there’s anything actually wrong with what you did, but I also don’t think you should kid yourself that you didn’t use AI shit for your business just because it wasn’t the final logo.
That’s absurd.
There’s a possibility that the artist might come back to me with something different from the AI mockup. We don’t know that yet. I only told them that the logo needs three specific components.
If I ask an AI to give me a premise for a book, write the entire book, delete it before anyone ever reads it, decide on a different premise and write a different book, did I use AI to write the book that people are going to read? No.
So like you didn’t find it useful at all for your business? Like not even to help you clarify your vision to a graphic designer?
I’m not sure yet… maybe a bit, maybe not. When I sent the AI markup over, the exact words I used were, “I’m going to attach the starter logo that AI made for me so that you can reference it. I’d give the AI logo a rating of about a 4 out of 10…”
Pretty much told the artist that the AI art sucks. If using the AI to tell the artist “don’t do this” was efficient, it probably helped a bit and you’d have a point. If the artist just does the same thing the AI did, it wasn’t useful at all but they got $75 out of me anyway.
People are being very pedantic here. You used AI for the logo in the same way I would use SketchUp for house designs. I still want a professional to do the real thing, but needed something to use to show the professional what I was thinking about having as the final product, since I don’t know how to do real house designs. I don’t see what you did as bad, since you went to a professional for your actual product.
That’s a very interesting quandary. I know most workers usually hate the revision portion of the process where they’re throwing away their work, but they’re also getting billable hours for it.
So if an artist genuinely has future clients lined up, and is only starved for time, I imagine they’d want the path that gives them the most finalized pieces they can share. But it would have to be case by case.
I mean, this is actually the reaction that it gets. Llms are being sold to everybody because they look kinda like they could maybe be useful for a bunch of things, then it turns out they’re actually worse that a good 1st week junior at all of them, so the only people who buy in are those so divorced from the front that they just have no idea (which necessitates that either they don’t listen to their peeps, of they have some real grifters in their advisory ranks) or people who never intended on actually making a product (to be clear, this is worse. Carelessness and indirect grift is bad. Direct gift is worse)
People here would definitely feel that way.
70% of human beings? They buying the ai shit.
According to Facebook, 80% of your friends should be AI bots, so that checks out.
This has been my reaction for a while now. And usually, I feel like it does tend to accurately represent the thought put into a product.
When a company barely thinks about their marketing material, (the thing they often require to even make their thing seem like a purchase you “need” in the first place) and just assumes that “AI cool therefore AI good” when making their ad, then yeah, I’m going to be highly skeptical of the thought they put into their actual product.
The only time it wouldn’t raise red flags for me is when it’s used in more of a, I guess you could call it a transitional manner. Like in Coca Cola’s “Masterpiece” ad where they mostly just used it to make the transitions between relatively different scenes look a little more natural, but it was only used for a few frames each time, rather than comprising the vast majority of the promotional material itself.
That ad required many actual talented human artists, and would not have been even physically possible with AI alone, so it evokes a different reaction in my opinion.
Of course, then Coca Cola marketing execs released their complete stock footage-looking AI slop ad a bit later, so it doesn’t seem like that’s a trend that’ll hold up.
Hey, if you don’t have much of a budget that’s fine. What AI indicates is that your thing is either too shitty to photograph, or that you don’t much care what it looks like.
the problem is commoners won’t notice it’s AI
Tested. Verified*. Obviously it depends on the quality of the output but we’re already past the point where the best models, with appropriate fine tuning, are noticeably AI on first glance.
*I work in market research, this is a sample of 3 creative tests.
Pro tip you don’t actually have to normalize this reaction because high effort media will always stand apart from low effort media, regardless of how it was created. My problem with “normalizing this reaction” is because I literally know dozens of artists who have been falsely accused of using AI generated imagery when they literally just are surrealist photo collagists and idiots automatically think that anything in that style is AI and harass actual artists for their actual work that they made with their actual hands
AI is about increasing profits. Consumer choice is not a thing when 99% of companies follow the same profit driven incentives. Reactions like this, while good, are not going to change anything. You cant make change through consumption. You must make change through labor and labor organization.
This sub is just filled with “consumption” based solutions to the point that I feel it is almost negative in trying to fight the actual problems with AI and art.
I want to see more pro union and pro labor posts here. This “change through consumption” crap is really getting old.
You can do both. Make informed decisions about how you spend your money, and foster unions.
Yes. But what is this sub primarily filled with?
If it looks like trash then kiss my ass
Trust me, you’re going to have zero ability to discern what is AI generated in less than two years.
I already can’t easily identify most of it I’m screwed
It would be so hilarious to revisit this confident (dare I say it: AI levels of confidence!) statement in two years when AI has crashed like every other previous wave of AI tech.
You’re on, I’m sorry for what’s coming.
You will be when this latest AI hype turns into the next AI winter, yes.
Not too sure about that, that might be the case but currently, they would need much more training to not mess up facial features, to make images truly lifelike and to follow prompt instructions better.
I’ve used dalle a fair bit and I came to the conclusion that you will never get a truly accurate representation of a person, such as hair on a bald persons head, stubble turning into a moustache, tons of wrinkles for no reason, etc. It only seems good at generating cartoon characters, even then though, there are still inaccuracies.
Their only solution is “throw more data at it!”
The technology definitely can get better, but you shouldn’t assume it will. Just look at the people developing it.
That’s not true. DeepSeek showed that smart people are working on it that are not entirely motivated by just making a cheaper way to advertise. I think the wests a implementation of AI is so horribly corrupted by capitalist incentives. I think we’ll continue to see advancements out of China and Asia. It’s definitely not “just throw more data at it”.
DeepSeek showed that the Western “just throw more data at it” nonsense is a failed strategy, and certainly China is going to continue developing this technology further. Their approach is much smarter, they build different models for different problems instead of trying to build a general purpose model that can do everything at once. Then DeepSeek can switch between different models to solve different problems, instead of trying to make every problem conform to their one general purpose model.
Let me clarify - I don’t think any advancement of this technology is going to come out of Silicon Valley. They’re all trying to build the Homer Car.
I mean, even the crappiest advertising literally makes Big Tech trillions of dollars, so unfortunately I don’t think is reality.
