|
| ▲ | overgard 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I dunno, I have some band posters that are pretty cool pieces of art that obviously had a lot of thought put into them (pre-AI era stuff). I don't think I'd hang up an AI generated band poster, even if it was cool; I'd feel weird and tacky about it. |
| |
| ▲ | runarberg 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I was hosting a Karaoke event in my town and really went out of my way to ensure my promotional poster looked nothing like AI. I really really really did not want my townfolks thinking I would use AI to design a poster. My design rules were: No gradients; no purple; prefer muted colors; plenty of sharp corners and overlapping shapes; Use the Boba Milky font face; | | |
| ▲ | dpark 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but… https://imgur.com/a/cYn68Cp | | |
| ▲ | runarberg 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean: https://imgur.com/a/BYikxEI The difference is very stark: - The AI has a hard time making the geometric shapes regular. You see the stars have different size arms at different intervals in the AI version. This will take a human artist longer time to make it look worse. - The 5-point stars are still a little rounded in the AI version. - There is way too much text in the AI version (a human designer might make that mistake, but it is very typical of AI). - The orange 10 point star in the right with the text “you are the star” still has a gradient (AI really can’t help it self). - The borders around the title text “Karaoke night!” bleed into the borders of the orange (gradient) 10-point star on the right, but only half way. This is very sloppy, a human designer would fix that. - The font face is not Milky Boba but some sort of an AI hybrid of Milky Boba, Boba Milky and comic sans. - And finally, the QR code has obvious AI artifacts in them. Point I’m making, it is very hard to prompt your way out of making a poster look like AI, especially when the design is intentional in making it not look like AI. | | |
| ▲ | dpark 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I hear what you’re saying and at the same time I don’t agree with some of your criticisms. The gradient, yep, it slipped one in. The imperfect stars? I have seen artists do this forever, presumably intentional flair. The few real “glitches” would be trivial to fix in Photoshop. But they are very different certainly. ChatGPT generated a poster with a very sleek, “produced” style that apes corporate posters whereas you went with a much more personal touch. You are correct that yours does not look like typical AI. My point is certainly not that the AI poster is better, only that it’s capable of producing surprising results. With minimal guidance it can also generate different styles: https://imgur.com/a/zXfOZaf I think the trend to intentionally make stuff look “non-AI” is doomed to fail as AI gets better and better. A year or two ago the poster would have been full of nonsense letters. > And finally, the QR code has obvious AI artifacts in them. I wonder if this is intentional, to prevent AI from regurgitating someone’s real QR codes. ETA: Actually, I wonder how much of the “flair” on human-drawn stars is to avoid looking like they are drag-and-drop from a program like Word. Ironic if we’ve circled back around to stars that look perfect to avoid looking like a different computer generated star. | | |
| ▲ | twobitshifter an hour ago | parent [-] | | > I think the trend to intentionally make stuff look “non-AI” is doomed to fail as AI gets better and better. What’s the mechanism that makes an AI ‘better’ at looking non-AI? Training on non-ai trend images? It’s not following prompts more closely. Even if that image had no gradients or pointier shapes, it still doesn’t look like it was made by an individual. To your counterpoints, notice that you are apologizing for the AI by finding humans that may have done something, sometime, that the AI just did. Of course! It’s trained on their art. To be non-AI, art needs to counter all averages and trends that the models are trained on. | | |
| ▲ | dpark 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > What’s the mechanism that makes an AI ‘better’ at looking non-AI? I don’t know. Better training data? More training data? The difference over the past year or two is stark so something is improving it. > Even if that image had no gradients or pointier shapes, it still doesn’t look like it was made by an individual. The fact that humans are actively trying to make art that does not look like AI makes it clear that AI is not so obvious as many would like to pretend. If it were obvious, no one would need to try to avoid their art looking like AI. > To your counterpoints, notice that you are apologizing for the AI by finding humans that may have done something, sometime, that the AI just did. Of course! It’s trained on their art. Obviously. > To be non-AI, art needs to counter all averages and trends that the models are trained on. So in order to not look like AI, art just has to be so unique that it’s unlike any training data. That’s a high bar. Tough time to be an artist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | AkBKukU 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > can't afford to pay one for whatever business I have At small scales what "art" does your business need? If you can't afford to hire an artist (which is completely fine, I couldn't for my business!) do you really need the art or are you trying to make your "brand" look more polished than it actually is? Leverage your small scale while you can because there isn't as much of an expectation for polish. And no, a band poster doesn't have to be a labor of love. But it also doesn't have to be some big showy art either. If I saw a small band with a clearly AI generated poster it would make me question the sources for their music as well. |
|
| ▲ | Peritract 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No one is saying that only experts can do things; that's a totally inaccurate reading of the argument and the post. People are saying, very clearly, that they're not willing to put effort into something produced by someone who put no effort in. |
|
| ▲ | squidsoup 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > band poster doesn't have to be a labor of love artisanal thing Very few bands would agree with that statement. |
|
| ▲ | Arch485 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think you're misunderstanding - most people's beef with AI art isn't that it "isn't made by experts", it's that 1) it's made from copyrighted works, and the original authors receive no credit;
2) it is (typically) low-effort;
3) there are numerous negative environmental effects of the AI industry in general;
4) there are numerous negative social effects of AI in general, and more specifically AI generated imagery is used a lot for spreading misinformation;
5) there are numerous negative economic effects of AI, and specifically with art, it means real human artists are being replaced by AI slop, which is of significantly lower quality than the equivalent human output. Also, instead of supporting multiple different artists, you're siphoning your money to a few billion dollar companies (this is terrible for the economy) As a side note, if you have a business which truly cannot afford to pay any artists, there are a lot of cheaper, (sometimes free!) pre-paid art bundles that are much less morally dubious than AI. Plus, then you're not siphoning all of your cash to tech oligarchs. |
|
| ▲ | jll29 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What, a music band's poster, 'typeset' in Microsoft Word?
I cannot imagine bothering to go to such a band's concert. <joke>What's your rock band called, "SEC Form 10-K"?</joke> |
|
| ▲ | Gigachad 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I actually love MS word posters. It's a million times more authentic and enjoyable than a slop generation. If a band put up an AI poster I'd assume they lack any kind of taste which is the whole reason I'd want to listen to a band anyway. I know this is controversial in tech spaces. But most people, particularly those in art spaces like music actually appreciate creativity, taste, effort, and personal connection. Not just ruthless efficiency creating a poster for the lowest cost and fastest time possible. |
|
| ▲ | swader999 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I agree and whose to say your life experience isn't as valid as someone with less years but more time at just the traditional tools? I'd think either extreme could produce real art if the tools moat was reduced with AI. |
|
| ▲ | reaperducer 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because I'm not an artist and can't afford to pay one for whatever business I have? If your business can't afford to spend $5 on Fivr, it's not a business. It's not even panhandling. |
|
| ▲ | Jtarii 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I would rather see a MS word poster than be lied to. |
|
| ▲ | satisfice 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| How about going without? I can’t afford an artist, either, so I don’t have art. Don’t foist slop on people because you are trying to be something that you aren’t. |
