| ▲ | internet2000 16 hours ago |
| People don't care and will continue not to care. I don't say that lamenting or with resignation. It's just a fact that we will need to accept. Think of all the poor typography around you. If you have a critical eye and care you can spot all sorts of bad choices: That's a preview of the future. AI-generated disposable art (posters, billboards, menus etc) that is orthogonal to the actual thing being sold will continue being the norm. |
|
| ▲ | VCFundedGenYer 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's not a fact. I will never accept AI generated items as creative nor valid entries in a contest. |
|
| ▲ | happytoexplain 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Try not to tell people what they need to accept. Acknowledge? Admit? Recognize? Fine. Accept? Not bother caring about? Don't demand people do that. |
| |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm pretty sure they used "accept" as synonymous with those words, don't read too much into it. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | 0xCAP 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This.100%. As people often lucky enough to work in niche sectors where users care to about the tiniest details we forget sometimes the majority of "stuff" out there exists without a soul already. Think of boring document templates, shop signs, cheap clothing designs, etc. And to he honest AI will probably raise the bar for all that stuff by a lot. Ofc like you mentioned it'll sometimes lead to misleading content (eg made up food pictures in menus), but if that happens that'll just be a byproduct of the service provider and consumers not caring enough to make that have an impact on the underlying business. |
| |
| ▲ | julianlam 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Ofc like you mentioned it'll sometimes lead to misleading content (eg made up food pictures in menus), This does happen without AI already. My local shawarma joint has a deal of the day poster of a chicken shawarma that's obviously not theirs. Next to a bottle of coke. The poster is sponsored by Coke and the restaurant just slapped on a price. |
|
|
| ▲ | Barbing 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People don’t care means if every poster were labeled “AI generated” with a black banner at the bottom, people wouldn’t care. Most can’t _recognize_ GPT & Gemini posters. Good point on preview of feature. |
| |
| ▲ | esrauch 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > if every poster were labeled “AI generated” with a black banner at the bottom, people wouldn’t care. Do you have evidence that people would care? The specific case of this poster it appears they are claiming it was disclosed by the submitter that it was AI and still picked. Maybe that's diffusing the situation after, but it seems most likely these people selected and asked to care about the poster knew it was AI and still selected it. Most people would care less than they did. | |
| ▲ | krackers 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The nature of preference-ranking in LLM post training means that "slop" is something that the average person actually prefers. Maybe there's an argument that it's not intentional but just emerges as a form of reward-hacking (e.g. people like a little bit of slop or sycophancy but the model dials it to 11) but I imagine if the end result wasn't rewarded ultimately that would get penalized. The fact that a clearly sloptacular image won first place seems to corroborate that indeed people do like it. Until people's tastes change and they learn to recognize and immunize themselves against slop, the models will continue to generate it. | | |
| ▲ | internet2000 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A parallel I like to draw is Thomas Kinkade and HDR photography. This style has always been popular, even pre-AI. | | |
| ▲ | happytoexplain 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Analogies are lazy rhetorical devices. Different things are, unsurprisingly, different. Saying "X is like Y" does nothing but invite the conversation to take a turn into identifying all the differences between X and Y. Just defend the original subject on its own merits. | | |
| ▲ | Barbing 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This comment is like an opinion someone had and then shared digitally with the world. - I didn't mind the Thomas Kinkade reference, but you do have me thinking about to what extent analogies are lazy. Do you abstain from using them completely, or keep them rare? | |
| ▲ | kdidiwkdkw 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
| |
| ▲ | Barbing 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Great points. Wouldn't it be interesting if we could take this image back to ourselves in 2021 and see how we thought about it? I'm not a visual artist, so I would not have been overly critical of it. Today, AI art has a ton of baggage & as a result, the sloptacular is bothersome to me. But before I could recognize it, before certain styles became played out… probably much less offensive. Will the generators keep up and become dynamic enough the immunization will never happen at scale? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | breezybottom 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Enough people cared that they decided to ban AI submissions in the future. Did you even click the link before commenting? |
|
| ▲ | shalmanese 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| They don't need to care, they just need to learn to tune it out, after which it becomes ineffective. Characteristic of this style of AI art is pseudo-detail: the artwork looks busy but when you inspect the detail, it contains no informational value. How could it, you cannot extract more detail from a prompt than what was put in. Contrast with a Where's Waldo picture, for example that is equally information dense but contains actually delightful jokes and variation that makes it interesting to look at. Good design doesn't work because people notice the clear information hierarchy. Good design works because good information hierarchy means people don't have friction trying to interpret it. |
