A lot of people in the comments say that the supposedly better examples in the article are still “horrible” because they can tell they’re AI and point to things that the AI did “wrong” and a human artist would do better.
That may be true if you’re working with a top of the line artist, but in my experience the average freelance designer online is significantly worse than AI. I’ve worked with dozens of budget friendly designers on Fiverr and consistently get way worse results than I’ve gotten from AI models. Will a great human designer produce better output than an AI? Maybe, but a small local event or business probably won’t have the budget to hire them or know where to find them. It’s cheaper, faster and easier to use AI to generate something that’s good enough for their purposes.
People also point out all the little flaws in the “good” examples and cite them as obvious tells that they were AI generated. I think it would be interesting to see if people could reliably distinguish between AI generated flyers and human made flyers. Sure, sometimes it’s obvious like when the AI adds those weird, cartoony people. But if the model is told not to create designs like that and stick to the styles used in the second half of the article, I expect people would have a much harder time distinguishing the human designs from the AI designs.
If the AI makes a “better” poster that everyone hates because it’s AI, and a person makes a “worse” poster that everyone likes because it’s human, isn’t the business better off with the “worse” poster?
I think the issue there is that, in the absence of the AI poster, people will still dislike the "worse" poster.
Since this is idealogical, a business owner's choices are:
* use AI and some people hate it on principle,
don't use AI and don't pay enough and some people hate it because it looks cheap,
don't use Ai and pay a bunch more and people don't hate it...maybe, depending on style and skill of the artist.
As a business owner, it's not an encouraging situation.
None of the AI haters (or haters in general) are willing to put money where their mouths are. None of them are willing to pay for better human artwork, yet have the audacity to criticize as if top artists owe them free output.
So you can't criticize something without coming up with some fantasy plan that will only exist in whatever corner of social media you left that comment, to make that criticism somehow now valid?
No, this is merely about what is sustainable, not morals. The supply is shifting towards increasingly AI generated. Almost all of the complainers are consumers and do not change the supply side of things. Until they do, the ultimate result is clear: they will die on a hill.
If you want to die on a hill while feeling morally superior, be my guest.
None of those things are battlegrounds for AI art complaints. The AI complaints are about anime, posters, YouTube videos, etc.
There was recently an anime in which they used one AI animated background in the ending theme, which spurred countless complaints. It's common knowledge that anime animators are badly paid on work on insane schedules, so they used AI to cut corners. How many of those complainers proposed better wages and less pressure for animators, vs demanding free replacement of the background at no cost on their own?
I don't really understand your argument. So because me in America was not able to vouch for Japanese labor laws, I don't support human art? My country isn't exactly in the nest position to judge other countries's economic budgets. Especially in the arts.
>When a significant amount of movie scenes are AI generated, let's see whether viewers are willing to pay premium for non-AI scenes,
You act like prices for media isn't going up while also enshittifying at the same time. Netflix, Xbox, theatres, DVD/BD box sets, game consoles, and so much more did not need AI as an excuse to raise prices.
The point isn't whether you pay for art when no AI alternative exists. The point is whether you would be willing to pay premium to prevent artists from using AI.
Do people really care much about how beautiful a human made poster look like? I don’t think I’ve ever seen that as an issue, a poster doesn’t have to look fancy. Though if I love any art piece then learn later it was made by AI I will for sure update my judgement and dismiss it as if I was tricked in the first place. You’re way better using Word art for your poster than delegating to an AI if you don’t want to receive negative attention
An AI generated poster signals low effort. If you're too lazy or too cheap to make a real poster it makes me wonder what other corners have been cut.
ajjenkins · · focus · HN ↗
That may be true if you’re working with a top of the line artist, but in my experience the average freelance designer online is significantly worse than AI. I’ve worked with dozens of budget friendly designers on Fiverr and consistently get way worse results than I’ve gotten from AI models. Will a great human designer produce better output than an AI? Maybe, but a small local event or business probably won’t have the budget to hire them or know where to find them. It’s cheaper, faster and easier to use AI to generate something that’s good enough for their purposes.
People also point out all the little flaws in the “good” examples and cite them as obvious tells that they were AI generated. I think it would be interesting to see if people could reliably distinguish between AI generated flyers and human made flyers. Sure, sometimes it’s obvious like when the AI adds those weird, cartoony people. But if the model is told not to create designs like that and stick to the styles used in the second half of the article, I expect people would have a much harder time distinguishing the human designs from the AI designs.
fwlr · · focus · HN ↗
mionhe · · focus · HN ↗
Since this is idealogical, a business owner's choices are: * use AI and some people hate it on principle, don't use AI and don't pay enough and some people hate it because it looks cheap, don't use Ai and pay a bunch more and people don't hate it...maybe, depending on style and skill of the artist.
As a business owner, it's not an encouraging situation.
FooBarWidget · · focus · HN ↗
dgellow · · focus · HN ↗
Literally nobody is saying that, what are you talking about
FooBarWidget · · focus · HN ↗
asdff · · focus · HN ↗
FooBarWidget · · focus · HN ↗
If you want to die on a hill while feeling morally superior, be my guest.
paulhebert · · focus · HN ↗
That is a bizarre stance
FooBarWidget · · focus · HN ↗
thunderfork · · focus · HN ↗
I know plenty of people (including myself) who pay for good human artwork :)
FooBarWidget · · focus · HN ↗
thunderfork · · focus · HN ↗
johnnyanmac · · focus · HN ↗
FooBarWidget · · focus · HN ↗
paulhebert · · focus · HN ↗
FooBarWidget · · focus · HN ↗
There was recently an anime in which they used one AI animated background in the ending theme, which spurred countless complaints. It's common knowledge that anime animators are badly paid on work on insane schedules, so they used AI to cut corners. How many of those complainers proposed better wages and less pressure for animators, vs demanding free replacement of the background at no cost on their own?
johnnyanmac · · focus · HN ↗
>When a significant amount of movie scenes are AI generated, let's see whether viewers are willing to pay premium for non-AI scenes,
You act like prices for media isn't going up while also enshittifying at the same time. Netflix, Xbox, theatres, DVD/BD box sets, game consoles, and so much more did not need AI as an excuse to raise prices.
johnnyanmac · · focus · HN ↗
FooBarWidget · · focus · HN ↗
johnnyanmac · · focus · HN ↗
dgellow · · focus · HN ↗
HappMacDonald · · focus · HN ↗
(One reason I ask is because it _might_ be nice to have more well trained AI gen _vector_ art options..)
6yyyyyy · · focus · HN ↗
throw28374 · · focus · HN ↗
Does a restaurant that doesn't grow its own vegetables "too lazy or too cheap?"
HappMacDonald · · focus · HN ↗