‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

AI-generated posters don’t have to be horrible

1902 points · 962 comments · ereiamjh

  1. ajjenkins · · focus · HN ↗
    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.

    1. berkes · · focus · HN ↗
      The blog also mentions, several times, that it wasn't the goal to be indistinguishable.

      I think it's actually a feature when people can recognize it as AI.

      Why would someone want it to be unrecognizable as AI? What is the reason people want to hide AI usage ? (other than when "cheating" in studies or examns or such, obv)

      1. RiverCrochet · · focus · HN ↗
        AI generated visuals are becoming a signal of A) low-effort, B) and/or unwillingness or inability to spend resources to genuinely present your product or brand.

        Both of these communicate that I will probably not get a good value for my money when buying your product or service.

        1. rpdillon · · focus · HN ↗
          > Both of these communicate that I will probably not get a good value for my money when buying your product or service.

          This is where I stop following. Businesses should focus on where they differentiate, and I really don't care how they generate signage if I can read it. I don't get anything by them paying Banksy to make their menu instead of having Gemini generate it. And if there is any connection to getting good value, it's the inverse: I'm more likely to get good value when I'm not paying for fancy advertising. See: every drugstore that puts generics alongside brand names for cheaper.

          1. RiverCrochet · · focus · HN ↗
            You're free to ignore signals of cheapness if you want, as well as not care about quality. If you want generic restuarant food I guess you can go to McDonalds instead of a burger place; it's all the same value to you I guess.
            1. rpdillon · · focus · HN ↗
              You're using rhetoric to try and change the subject -- you're making a jump from "good value" to "lack of quality", and painting them with the same brush.

              I'm saying I don't particularly value businesses that focus on things that are low impact for me. I'd rather my barista focus on sourcing good beans and making good coffee than paying someone to do a fancy custom menu for them. We see this all the time when we visit new areas. It's considered naive to follow whatever looks most glitzy -- every seasoned traveler will tell stories about all the tourist traps, and how the real quality is the hole-in-the-wall place all the locals gather.

              What I'm saying is we shouldn't conflate quality with marketing and advertising, which is what posters are. You seem dead set on doing so anyway, and I'm not sure why.

              1. RiverCrochet · · focus · HN ↗
                > You're using rhetoric to try and change the subject -- you're making a jump from "good value" to "lack of quality", and painting them with the same brush.

                Correct, I am. I apologize if I gave the impression I was debating. I will absolutely "conflate" quality with marketing and advertising when it's the only signal I have about a company and I don't have the resources to research further. For example, if I'm in a new place, out and about, and looking for somewhere to eat, and only have an hour or so, yes I'm choosing the place without AI slop ads unless I have additional information - especially if the food is generically AI generated. I'd love to have time to deeply research all businesses and companies and ignore ads entirely but that's not always practical.

                Me learning of your company on Instagram or similar through an AI slop poster ad that looks exactly like the 10 preceding monster-truck-rally AI slop poster ads is a bad impression to me. From comments I've seen on similar Instagram ads, I'm not alone.

            2. williamcotton · · focus · HN ↗
              There’s some level of irony around the fact that McDonalds spends quite a lot on branding and design.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.