> "Endeladyze said she felt terrible that she had upset her customers, but she was also frustrated at the idea that she should have been paying a real artist. Making these signs was a job only she had done herself or with employees in the past, never hiring outsiders."

This seems like the wrong attitude to take after experiencing such a backlash. If she'd made the signs herself for years then why resort to using AI to produce what is so obviously a generic slop result?

The article says she paid $150 for printing and $200 for a stand. Why not throw another $200 towards an artist?

▲

kevmo an hour ago | parent [-]

Sounds like she was undervaluing her previous employee's artistic skills.

▲

free_bip 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

Indeed, artists provide a very valuable service. It's a shame the AI industry feels they're replaceable when they're obviously not.

▲

Cider9986 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

Their price is based on supply and demand just like everything. If AI decreases demand or raises supply then their price will go down.

▲

free_bip 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

Basic economic theory states that only holds if the goods / services being provided are equivalent in the eyes of consumers. It seems self evident here that consumers do not consider them equivalent.

	▲	Cider9986 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You said that the AI industry feels they're replaceable. I'm not saying that AI does equivalent work, I'm saying that AI companies don't choose the prices for art, they just play in the market.