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.
I saw a job listing the other day for an “AI Advocate” (I don’t remember the specific job title). Basically the job was to promote the use of AI products to other companies. It got me thinking that their AI replacements for humans must not be very good if they need a human to promote them, otherwise the AI would be able to successfully sell itself.
This could be said of any other job though. “I guess AI isn’t that good, because it can’t replace ______.” Why would you assume that AI advocate should be especially easy for AI?
AI chats are known for their overconfident persuasiveness, especially when incorrect. IIRC the job was pretty much just yapping that exact type of rhetoric.
In general, salespeople are still employed, as far as I know. AI hasn’t been able to replace them. Perhaps AI is too gullible to the client.
Of all the job sectors AI could take out, sales is the one I’m hoping for the most…
The one and only time I’ve done consulting for a pharmaceutical company, I was presented with an AI generated ad for a drug. They kept asking what I liked about the image and the only acceptable response was how are you all finding ways to make medicine more impersonable than it already is
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)
AI would give you the finger if it could draw one.
If I hear an “AI” voiceover I have the same reaction. Definitely won’t be buying anything from Dr. Squatch.
I absolutely hate computer generated voices, especially when I have to listen to them for a long time. An AI narrated video? Nope.
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
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.
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…
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.
… 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.
Hate to tell you but you’re the only one thinking that. The average consumer could not care less.
That’s hyperbole. Perhaps the majority of consumers don’t care, but some do.
It’s not hyperbole. I said “the average consumer”, not “all consumers”.
Probably referring to “you’re the only one thinking that.” There’s at least two of us :p
But yeah, probably not most
At least three
Oh. In that case, yes.
In my anecdotal experience which is of course the most solid and accurate (/s) people I’ve talked to within my circles do care just not enough to do anything. Pretty much along the lines, “of AI, weird, anyways”
Don’t know what that link is but it’s staying blue unless you want to tell me what’s behind it.
It is a link to an academic journal.
Consequently, this study suggests that using the term “Artificial Intelligence” in marketing campaigns and product descriptions may negatively impact consumer demand.
The OP is not about using AI terminology in marketing campaigns, it’s about using AI imagery.
The average consumer cares about the quality of a product as well as how affordable it is. AI…I dunno, it doesn’t really make a product “look” better if it’s ads or packaging or what have you, have a “meh” AI art vibe. AI art, because of its ease of generation, is vast becoming a sign of genericness.
The average consumer couldn’t pick out AI generated marketing anyway
Depends on your target demographic I guess. Younger consumers will notice, older ones not so much.
Why is that a good argument? The comic doesn’t say “all people will think like this” or even imply it.
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.
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.
This art made by an artist wearing clothes made by machines because they didn’t want to pay a tailor.
ME, doing shitty sewing on my own old clothes: “You know, I’m something of a tailor myself”
I’m one of the few dudes who didn’t think sewing was for women back in school, and let me tell you - that shit is worth having as a skill. Legitimately being able to tailor your own clothing is legit.
However, I’m not gonna dump on people without the skill to do it - just like I won’t dump on people who use modern tools to create graphics.
You know it’s funny is that there’s entire artistic movements (even in fashion itself) all about challenging the idea that art is inherently a demonstration of technical ability, and that such a world view is actually incredibly philosophically shallow, limited, and frankly incoherent when you’re trying to actually decide what is and isn’t art. For instance, Johnny Rotten safety pinning his sleeves onto his shirt is a far more interesting tailor than anyone at a high-end fashion boutique even if he literally doesn’t know how to sew.
What the fuck kind of garbage argument is that, gtfo here
Everyone laugh at this person. Heckle and pursue them all their days.
Do you not think fashion is art?
Most people buying clothes aren’t looking for high fashion, they’re looking for something comfortable in a colour that they like. Those who are looking for fashion tend to get clothes that are originally designed and made by a tailor, and then copied so others may wear them, importantly with the consent of the tailor. These are akin to YCH commissions, since the artist/tailor gets paid for the design.
This doesn’t apply to AI image generation, as the artists are almost never asked for their consent before their work gets copied and cloned a million times over. Nor do they get any sort of compensation for their stolen work.
Fun fact, fashion is one of the few artistic media that has literally never been protected by copyright law and has literally always been filled with people having their work copied and cloned millions of times over with no recourse. And this isn’t even considered to be a bad thing. This is just how fashion works as an art.
Most people buying art aren’t looking for high art, they’re looking for something that they enjoy looking at. Those who are into art are in no way restricted from buying non-AI art if they want to. The whole argument about intellectual theft is bullshit, every single fashion designer steals ideas and inspiration from elsewhere.
See, here’s my problem. I took some time to think it over.
You don’t actually care about art, here. You care about what you do. Which, I’m guessing, involves tailoring.
You brought tailoring into this out of nowhere. Nobody was talking about it but you had to.
This conversation was about AI art and the consequences of it on people trying to make a living, and your retort was sewing machines took jobs too.
You really wanna stand by that? Is that the hill you wanna die on?
I automate business processes for a living, not using AI (yet). I literally improve productivity for a living.
Making an argument about the consequences of people trying to make a living was exactly my point, but you fail to realize that that argument has been made literally hundreds of times over the last two centuries as new technologies have come out that cause concerns for workers, Including for fabric and sewing.
The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Luddites:
The Luddites were members of a 19th-century movement of English textile workers who opposed the use of certain types of automated machinery due to concerns relating to worker pay and output quality. They often destroyed the machines in organised raids.[1][2] Members of the group referred to themselves as Luddites, self-described followers of “Ned Ludd”, a legendary weaver whose name was used as a pseudonym in threatening letters to mill owners and government officials.[3]
You’re just Ludd-AI-tes
Yeah I’ve seen this nonsense before. “Yet you live in capitalism, curious”. Bullshit.
Shh, this is Lemmy, AI bad sir.
I just assume anyone who loves these chatbots is a fellow chatbot. No real actual humans could be that stupid.
No real actual humans could be that stupid
On the one hand, do not underestimate how stupid people can be, on the other…
That’s fair, I also believe that anyone that disagrees with me on something must be monumentally stupid.
Oh look, it’s still pretending to be a person.
I’ve got an AI on my refurbished Linux laptop - where I can fucking see it. :cocks gun:
Generational AI that’s taking work from actual people is bad
Did you read the sub name? If you don’t like it, fuck off somewhere else. Or make you own AI loving instance.
The world needs more clothes than human hands can make. Not true of illustrations.
Humans clothed themselves before machines existed, so clearly that isn’t true.
Want to try a different argument?
And they did so via slavery. Still do in some parts of the world. So their argument is still valid. Clothing people requires these tools, art does not. AI ‘art’ doesn’t need to exist.
Are you stupid? You think that the only way everyone had clothes 2000 years ago was slavery?
The Amish still make their own clothes today, without any slavery or machines beyond a spinning jenny.
The Amish also live in a way that doesn’t scale to eight billion human beings. But you already knew that and are arguing in bad faith.
Why does scaling matter to the argument at all?
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?
