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.

Ach, idk. On average people have horrible design aesthetics, yet are now so arrogant about it, because they imagine their a newly found ability to spot design generated with AI equates to them being able to spot bad design.

No, you silly geese. What you are able to spot is somebody using AI poorly. That's not you developing taste. It's the equivalent of being able to tell something is photoshopped because somebody used a default brush poorly, or masked something poorly and then confounding using Photoshop with using Photoshop poorly.

You have absolutely no way of telling when a good designer created something entirely using AI (unless they are fine with you knowing that) and that has always been true.

I find it kinda funny that even "smartest", most capable models often have a very hard time going beyond surface-level, top-of-mind associations, when faced with creative tasks.

Of course, a "Japanese Minimal Poster" has a sakura and a stylized flag of Japan, duh

A human designer would probably think that "Japan -> sakura" and "Japan -> Japanese flag" are way too obvious, too banal, too stereotypical, and, most importantly too boring. And then they would probably sit for a while and try to think of something fresher and less clichéd.

But AI has absolutely no problem with going with the cheesiest, most overused trope.

It’s not complicated - the default style signals low effort. Why should I get excited about the village fete if the organizers put in the barest minimum of effort?

But there’s another reason it drives people crazy - it’s low effort trying to present as high effort. If the sign was simple Comic Sans then it would at least be charmingly honest.

I think this is an unfair comparison. The "better" AI-generated posters in the article are all much more minimalist.

Minimalist designs have much less opportunity to insert "personality", be it that of a designer or that of an AI. No wonder they look less AI-generated, and when they do it is because some "AI-baroque" slipped through. Fancy unicode characters no human would think of are the salient one in OPs examples.

It'd be much fairer to compare AI and human for the same desired style, and yes a lot of AI-generated stuff is immediately recognizable because no one bothered to tell the AI about the desired style.

I work in a copy-print center where we take orders for business card, posters, flyers, invitations, and all sorts like that. Lately, I have been getting more and more AI generated artwork for these flyers and business cards, and they are not sized correctly. I can tell it's AI generated not from style, layout, or even hallucinations, but just the size. The background are a full color, the customer insists that it's the right size, but I have to tell them that if I print what they gave me, there is going to be large white borders on the sides, tops, or all around. I have had to explain to too many customers that AI doesn't know what an inch really is, as the reference images it has are different sizes. AI flyers could be the best design ever, but it will never be sized properly and will still piss off the print employee.

And I have found that if you are paying for an AI service to get these generic, wrong sized designs, you could have spent just as much going on Fiverr and gotten something that doesn't need to get a full style revision.

>The problem with these is not so much that they’re bad. They’re OK, I don’t love them. The problem is that once you’ve seen that style 20 times it starts to irritate just from the sheer repetition.

This is one of the better statements of the issue right here. I think because people dislike the actors and economics surrounding AI they also feel a need to categorically reject any of it's products, but it's not necessarily bad in the sense of poor aesthetic taste as it is bad in it's lack of a appreciating that being novel as a style matters almost as much as the actual style and direct repetition teaches us not to like the style itself.

The only ones that aren't horrible manage that because they're so bland there's nothing to go wrong. Look at an example with some detail, the "Now please make one in the style of a 90s drum n bass gig flyer, with early 3D/fractal computer imagery" poster.

At the top of the page we have a deformed wireframe sphere. A wireframe sphere is stylistically appropriate, but the incorrect rendering is not. The "CGI" aesthetic requires obviously computer generated lines, which in the 90s meant accurate and regular lines.

Next we have a messed-up stellated polyhedron, and a messed-up dot pattern. These also fail for the same reason. The main 3D rendering is also obviously broken, as are many other small details.

But the biggest failure is the complete misunderstanding of the culture. 90s DnB was absolutely not about "good vibes". The smiley face logo is completely inappropriate; that's associated with late 80s/early 90s rave culture, pre-DnB era. 90s DnB was much darker and edgier in tone. The scene was almost exclusively male, and it maintained a aggressive vibe carried over from jungle.

A 90s DnB event would never advertise "bringing communities together". Audiences would be repelled by such messaging. This is despite it actually doing just that, as the scene was racially integrated in a way that mainstream music at the time was not. If there's going to be pro-social messaging on the poster it has to be there only implicitly.

The author claims that the AI posters don’t have to be horrible, but fail to see that the dozen variations generated are not distinctive - they might have somewhat different typography or imaginary, but still have the same AI uniformity and smell as the crappy restaurant poster you see on the street. The core issue is not only technical, but also the lack of vision and imagination when creating art or even infographics.

> Inspired by this blog post, I went on to make a catalogue of one hundred poster styles, with ready-to-paste prompts and example images for each one.

This is really cool! I don’t ever make posters - but I can imagine these being super useful

Contempt for art is what this is.

For example, Sure, you can make a craven facsimile of punk art for your poster. But that art style signals to punks that other punks are going to be there. You would never reproduce that style using traditional methods because you are not a member of that artistic tradition.

You should keep the originals. They signal to AI slopsters that this is a great place to meet other slopsters.

Horrible is - not caring about what AI created, and just throwing it out there.

Not horrible is - caring about the outcome, and using AI to make it possible, irrespective of the skill level.

Horrible is - everyone trying to copy paste someone else’s work without caring.

I think, human thought + ai built is the “not horrible”, might even be awesome

At a certain point, pottery that looked like a child made it became the high end, because well-executed pottery was coming out of machines.

We've officially reached that point with advertisements. Save your tokens. Hire your 9-year-old niece to draw the poster by hand and you'll likely get a far better reaction from most people. Nobody goes to a fair because the poster had a "modernist / Bauhaus-influenced graphic style".

This is good to know, but the kind of folks who use AI to create their posters and menus aren't going to be able to be so specific. They'll throw the details at an LLM and take whatever they get the first time. What matters is they didn't have to pay a designer (they ignore that they're paying a subscription).

The original posters were better than any of the mockups.

Not because they looked good, but because they used a design language that "at-a-glance" said what the event was. Sure, the designers republic/etc looked less commonplace, but if I was looking for a fun local faire I would absolutely never notice those posters and if I went i'd assume it was a completely different type of event than it is (e.g. some sort of modern art faire).

Every one of those posters didn't fit the medium idea at all (local faire event) except the child's drawing one could maybe pass.

In fact I can almost guarantee that all the posters in this article would perform worse than the originals if you were to test them on the street or in a facebook group.

If you are an actual production/commercial designer, your first goal is to understand what the clientele wants and converts, secondarily make it beautiful.

This failed both, zero understanding of the purpose of commercial art (to speak to the actual clientele and bring in more people) and ugly within their own design language (but yes, less common).

Would have been interesting to try and make designs that actually make sense for this product AND are a bit less generic.

What's interesting is that you can't do the same with long-form AI prose. You can ask any given LLM to write in different styles, but it will always fall back on the same rhetorical and structural techniques, so the "new style" is strictly surface-level. In fact, it's getting worse over time -- especially in Claude from Opus 4.6 --> Opus 5.

I suspect that the same thing is happening here -- as other comments note: lack of distinctiveness, uniformity -- but that the low information content of posters prevents it from becoming immediately obvious.

Buried at the end of the article the author linked a library of different art styles applied to the same poster content. Found some new cool art styles to try out in the future. https://john.hartnup.uk/poster-prompts/

> The problem is that once you’ve seen that style 20 times it starts to irritate just from the sheer repetition.

But that's how the algorithm behind LLMs functions. It simply cannot create something unique by stepping out of its existing knowledge base. It has to refurbish existing data, because, well, that's all it has.

One might argue that a human artist also is refurbishing data, made out of experiences and knowledge it has gather throughout its life.

The difference I think comes from something extra (that we're entirely dumb-founded on) that the human mind can contemplate and extrapolate from, to be able to generate something truly unique and different.

I hope (and believe) this extra magical capacity is what will not allow AI (at least in its current statistical form) to be able to match us in terms of creativity & uniqueness.

I went to our state fair recently, and there were so many advertisements for their food that was AI generated, and I suppose if the food looked anything like what was depicted maybe I wouldn't have had a problem, but I felt "tricked" into buying something that appeared good, and turns out, looked nothing like what it was. I overpaid, and didn't even end up eating 1/4 of it. I'm not sure if this quite falls in the same vein as the og post, but it definitely made me feel that way.

I should be fair (no pun intended) there was one booth that had mini donuts that I felt were better than the AI generated poster advertisement, but the rest of the food I ate, was certainly not.

I think we're in the 'early digital camera' phase of AI art gen.

The real photographers knew they were shit photos. They were grainy, bad lenses, and ugly. A lot of people still liked them because they were much more convenient for a lot of uses than the film ones.

Well, I guess there's still a lot of film people. But film had a ceiling. Digital cameras kept getting better.

The adaptive film photographers eventually adopted the tool. A lot of their skills transferred well to the new medium. Most waited until the cameras got good enough, though.

I'm not sure when that'll be with AI art gen. Seeing scenes broken up into layers in the latest gpt image generation, though, made me think we might be near.

But the thing is, all have that icon+text style in the "tombola, cakes and drinks..." part. If I wanted to be distinctive, this is what I would have tried to get rid of at first, not the "visual style" (it's sort of like Windows XP visual styles, no matter how different they are the overall layout is still recognisably Windows).

I agree that these examples are "better than the default" but still suffer from many AI-design bad smells. In terms of design, "style" (as in "Bauhaus" vs "Japanese" vs "Faux kid drawing") is less important than readability, economy and communication:

- The main issue with AI posters and flyers is almost uniform information density. They read as "too crowded". Posters should, like photographs or paintings, have a rhythm where some areas are high density and others act as negative space, and provide a more restful transition between information areas.

- The icons as bullet-points are a big AI cliche, and for the most part useless. Nobody needs an icon of a cupcake to understand what "cake" means and most of the other icons have no clear interpretation. Icons are only useful when, by themselves, communicate the idea (like the typical toilet icon). It's telling that every poster includes them.

- AI is not brave enough, or wise enough, to leave some blank space. Blank space is the #1 design resource.

- Font and visual style should not be arbitrary aesthetic choices, but rather motivated ones. They could relate to the event or the place through its history, culture, biome, or through the utopian vision of what the organizer is trying to bring to life. There should almost never be a legitimate choice between "Should we use Japanese, Punk or Kid-drawing style?"

- Being honest, earnest, truthful, is better than being cool.

- If a poster for an event calls your attention you can scan for the date, time and place. They will be there somewhere. But before you get there, there'll be important questions: "who organizes this?" "who is this for?" "what's the vibe going to be like?". Only a few of the posters try to partially provide this information through very small sentences (e.g., "A day of music, making and family fun")... but it's hardly enough. In my opinion this is what 80% of the time designing the poster should be spent on... looking nice and "professional" won't inspire trust or create commitment.

so who is going to the spring fayre?

Something horrible I've noticed with a lot of AI-generated design is the size of the typeface.

There's a menu for a place in my town and it's completely illegible. They printed the same thing in three sizes, and you need a magnifying glass to see the text on the smallest two.

Accessibility matters, and is part of the job of a designer. The problem with AI tools is that by skipping the expert, you risk making some horrible mistakes.

Small businesses torching years and years of propaganda and goodwill lavished on them, so they can save the $50 it would cost to have a human design a decent-looking poster.

Designers republic and memphis were the only designs i couldn't immediately see were AI generated.

The only reason i couldn't tell memphis is because it's aping a known design language already, it's just a perfect copy so me not being able to tell it wasn't AI isn't a free pass in this case.

I think if there was a little less "grid" feeling to the layout details then i wouldn't be able to tell on a few of the other designs either.

Edit: the designers republic version is quite a lot different than the others, it's not just that it's the only design to avoid pairing every feature with an icon, it's the whole layout variety - there's different font sizes, the positioning of elements is very well done to my eye. I'm gonna say this has to be another case like memphis, there's some pre-existing design language that i don't know of and it's just aping that. It's much more human than the others which i can believe are straight ai.

The thing about the icons next to each phrase is that they are useless. Forget how they look, instead ask why they are there? Icons in UX design give a visual representation of what a button does, to help people understand the interaction with the UI. Well, these are posters. There are no buttons. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why an icon exists in the first place. (And yes, this is true for many of the places where AI throws in icons.)

That is why, even if the look of a poster is OK, they are failures. Because they forget that the reason these advertising posters exist is to communicate something that is going on. A nice look to them is a bonus, not the core purpose. So claiming that AI isn't doing a horrible job is because the author is misunderstanding what the job is in the first place.

Generative AI is actually pretty good at giving you rough concept sketches and iterating on top of existing renders.

However, you must retain control over the scene graph and its composition. Use the output of the AI to guide how you work it. Do not assume the AI system has the ability to simulate world space with any meaningful fidelity. You can move transforms around in Blender and Unity with floating point bit increment/decrement operations if you wish. LLMs will never have this level of control.

Lighting systems are an entire universe of reasons you should do it the hard way too. Being able to iterate light placement and intensity with nanometric precision starts out looking like a brick wall, but it turns into a superpower once your scene is halfway decent.

I can usually tell when someone used AI to do things like generate steam store art because their camera doesn't change in a physically plausible way between the horizontal and vertical layouts. When you have access to the raw scene you can place the same camera in multiple orientations without altering any other aspect of the scene. The header capsule and vertical capsule are very difficult to make look coherent if you are using an LLM to generate these assets. Your best bet with AI art is to render something so big that it can be cropped for both, which is also quite obvious and ugly. Being able to instrument a scene as if it were a real place is way more productive than an LLM once the scene is ~done.

I see, across my city and others I visit, every bar/restaurant/etc now has low effort one shot posters, menus, etc, some with old chatgpt nonsense text / errors. It's everywhere. All that brown-ish hue food 'pictures' etc. I mean 'authentic Pizza napolitana!' and then an AI generated picture of said pizza... One of them (an Italy born Italian restaurant owner here) and he just said; people come in with the very expensive pictures / menus I had before and the same amount of people come in with these free ones. And he actually likes these better as photographing (real, not mcd/burgerking plastic props with poison paint to make it look better) food is hard, even when paid for.

This is a bit like telling the owner of a Tiki bar that they don't need to use the Papyrus font, or a kindergarten that they don't need to use MS Comic Sans. The default style exists because AI-naive people with unsophisticated tastes find it amazing. If you give them prompts for different styles, you at best just trade one devil for another, similarly to how everyone started prompting for "studio Ghibli".

Leaving aside the quality of the different posters here, I think the interesting question is where did the default AI generated style come from? It's certainly not one of the styles listed if you interrogate chatgpt, it's not something it seems to be choosing to do.

I think the signature noisy, crowded, HDR-y look shows these posters are being spat right out of a diffusion model. They always have an image background with the classic light halos around text.

When I one-shot a poster out of Gemini or whatever, I can't make anything nearly as bad as the ones I see every day. What on earth are people even using to make stuff that bad?

Everyone's sick of seeing the same default ChatGPT style on posters for everything from village fetes to coffee shops to school plays.

But I'm convinced that just vetoing AI is to throw away the baby with the bathwater. So I set out to prove it.

I think this is a misdiagnosis of the problem. The AI posters are just fine, perhaps even pretty good.

The problem is that using AI to create the posters show a lack of willingness to put in effort, and it makes you question whether the producer cares about the product and whether they care about the large scale societal problems related to the usage of post-2022 transformer based neural networks.

One trick that works from IRL is building a moodboard. Go to Pinterest, find what you like, paste it together.

If you're short on time, you can ask AI to summarize into a certain time and craft the prompt from there. But it's better to figure out what you really like.

ChatGPT tends to fall to the same things, but many of the other image generators do much better.

This feels like an AI trap almost. A lot of the badness comes from people who don't want/can't put effort into it, so we all get a deluge of the sameyness.

One thing you can do that never seems to occur to anyone is to tell the LLM to critique its own work. Then ask it how it would fix the issues it found, then feed that into the next iteration. You can also ask it to look for generative AI “tells” and do the same. One-shotting a prompt rarely gives you the best output.

Can someone post an event poster that they think is incredible? These posters all look fine to me, but the comments seem to know much better ones - but at least in my memory I can’t recall any much better.

I love how the AI silently injected "A day of fun for all the family" on the hand-drawn by a child design.

PS: Which then survives in the next iterations as "A day of music, making and family fun"

Edit: Ah just saw the call out on the previous iteration.

But still it's a nice display about the semantics encoded in the models.

Word processors are designed to maximise readability, handling things like alignment and white space with zero effort from the user.

These posters don't have the feature of readability. They inconsistently apply the required design principles for this. Removing some of the clutter helps, but a WordArt poster from 1992 is still a better final product for the purpose.

Taking the last poster as an example (1940s cubist style), the graphic seems almost designed to draw your eye towards blank space. This, very precisely, detracts from the goal: the graphic is providing negative value!

Whereas, genuine 1940s cubist art exhibition posters are really astonishingly good at communicating the key information. As one example, https://artposterarchive.com/products/edward-wadsworth-vorti...

Now do this for science conference posters. There's something haphazard, unnerving, and uninformative about the AI-generated ones I am encountering increasingly. I imagine musicians feel similarly about AI-generated music and artists about AI-generated art because in all 3 cases, we're detail oriented.

For me it's about the unconventional analogies they try to express combined with their layout that even a couple crude 8.5x11 Excel plots and a poster author express better. And the human factor is an important component of poster sessions IMO.

It's not that the first one is so awful in isolation, it's that they are everywhere you look when you walk down the street. The barbers, the school fête, the cafe, the church. Everywhere.

I like the other posters more, but the first poster probably still conveys the idea of the event better: people having fun, drinking beer, with a live band. You don't get that from most of the other posters unless you first mentally transform those icons into real things, which takes effort.

I'm starting to think that icons are in fact the low-effort way to convey information. It's design you can just throw in anywhere without adapting it to context (except for maybe changing color).

At least the AI generated posters are better than human-generated t-shirt designs, where you find generic texts such as: "Est. 1984" (or any random year), "I [heart] NY", "Property of [City/School] Athletic Dept.", "Original Trademark", "Authentic Denim Brand", etc., etc.

I don't often say this but those jobs are ripe for replacement by AI. It won't do worse!

I'm reminded of how Mac apps are supposed to conform to common UI standards rather than going off and reinventing the wheel. Also the Bootstrap template for websites.

Similarly, it would be nice if there were common styles for posters that you could just use and an AI could generate and nobody would criticize you for. Not everything has to be an original design.

these are definitely better.

I really wonder what's going on in the minds of those who make the shitty AI posters? like, are they that unaware?

for me when I see them I just get instantly repulsed

if NOT TRULY personal preference, then all those variations ARE horrible, but if they serve some taste--personal or marketing--then they are likely not to everyone's taste.

to me, they all look like lazy-prompting, which is the only way I ever do genAI imaging, because I fail to see why that "CPU" should be wasted on something I barely even care for.

That said ... let kids do that shit and pay them 50 or 100 bucks ...

The issue is that in my walled garden, I have not seen any of the good AI stuff. My wardens still use some home trained GPT 3.5 for most stuff, including their songs on potify and bootube. And i can't get access to current top level public AIs, either. Had the actual ChatGPT and Claude models for some while but I knew why ... otherwise I might put effort into semantics, syntax, grammar and my image generation prompts, which currently look like some MITM is speedrunning collages using haiku cowork and crayons or something ...

AI is a tool, just like photoshop was. Just because someone bought photoshop didn't mean that they can magically create amazing digital artwork, they had to learn photoshop and also be creative. Otherwise it would have been a horrible poster with comic sans. Same goes for AI, one has to learn to use the tool and be creative.

I've been trying to help someone create publicity images (who can't afford to pay a designer). The biggest problem with AI is modification of input photos. The results are good, but still trying to get it to not "sloppify" the images.

I remember seeing that default style long before AI. Probably where it came from. At least the default is not Corporate Memphis.

One of the biggest problems is actually making sure the information needed is on the poster.

Times, dates, location, pricing, parking etc…

As he points out “it added a bunch of text…” now it’s one all the future designs. That’s great - is the text correct?

To be honest this was a problem before AI. People are not very good at communicating.

All posters I saw used to look like these sub-10-dollar stuff before AI took over: https://graphicriver.net/posters-graphics?sort=trending#cont...

They were/are not great. While I agree that spending extra 10 minutes improves the results, AI stuff are also not amazing. I think there's nothing surprising about this.

They just need to not exist

On design we have aesthetics but also legibility and usability.

For legibility: the first examples are bad because they fail to easily communicate what/when/where/details in a couple seconds, mainly because the profusion of visual clutter obfuscates the message. The latter examples fare much better on that regard.

Usability is a constraint maybe more applicable to websites like the discussion I saw the other day on the design of claude-written pages (all look the same, feels ok but good UX probably lacking).

Slop is slop because people put in zero effort so the LLM just produces the first thing it was trained to do. You can absolutely get good results out of AI but it takes taste and a little work.

I’m convinced that almost nobody that is saying to hire cheap designers instead of AI has actually done so.

Think of the absolute worst, dogshit offshore developer contractors you have worked with. It’s the same thing for design. In the 1% chance they can even understand what you want them to do, you then have a 1% chance that they are capable of executing it in a barely satisfactory way.

The top ones which are all the same are better than any that which follow. To my eye.

Guess it’s subjective. I’m looking for fair info. He is looking for design uniqueness.

Nothing in that article isn’t horrible to my eyes.

Well, they're superficially less same-y, but none of them are really giving spring fair vibes.

Except for the "professional graphic designer has added typography to a poster paint drawing by his young child" one, I'd go as far to say that I actually like it, especially if you were to remake it with the assistance of an actual child.

HN may as well be /r/accelerate

The AI obsession is ruining every conversation.

The icon list in every poster, no matter which style (even the minimalists) is what's killing me.

Moral of the story - have taste.

Just like in engineering.

This is one of the most interesting posts I've seen, and that's the way people should work with AI. A brainstorming session, with background and references, with broad knowledge of the field, then with clear instructions on how to proceed, different designs, propositions out of the ordinary, etc

I've been doing that for the last six months and the results are more than spectacular for the apps I build

So no, 'create an inventory app' is not enough, you have to be specific in every sense, every detail of the tech stack, phases, checklists, roadmaps, decisions, everything that makes AI's life easier (less mistakes to make and fix) and yours too.

Next time, start with "Let's have a brainstorming session about an [inventory] app we will create and at the end write a very detailed prompt.md, here is the initial context... ask all the questions you may have before writing any code"

* Replace [inventory] with any other app you may need

And remember one thing, AI is a multiplier of both our intelligence and our stupidity, the outcome will reflect that

Edit: The link at the end deserves some exposure, it's the work of the author showcasing 100 prompts for different designs [1] and some people won't get there because tl;dr or short attention span. Get them, use them, learn from them

[1] https://john.hartnup.uk/poster-prompts

I like this post. And the comments even more. I've rarely seen such a breath of opinions and analysis on HN. And it's all from a straightforward use case and a few examples. Is it HN tailored clickbaiting? If it is, it is the right kind.

That default style is very recognizable. I am seeing it everywhere.

I guess it is like the early days of wordprocessing, where you saw Comic Sans everywhere.

It all reminds me of when Amazon website used to get laughed at but those who overweighted their design preferences. The first ai poster in the list look fine to me

Thank you! These are so nice compared to the 1000 times repeated AI graphic I see everywhere.

This article is doing the whole concept a disservice. It's still just randomly generating without thought; albeit maybe with a drop more taste than usual. (not a significant amount of taste, just a single drop).

The problem with a lot of AI is that the baseline is already past "good enough" for many folks.

But you can also imagine a very different approach:

Imagine if you start with a vision, and just happen to use AI tools as part of your process to realize that vision, just-like/along-with many other implements. I've seen examples where people put together many layers in photoshop or gimp, and mix with rendering, hand drawn art, photographs, etc. Very much like how some of the better programmers work with AI assist.

Is there a way to formalize the space of all possible aesthetics a model knows, in a way that you could randomly sample from it?

The analogy in my mind when I read this post was: you are asking a machine to paint a color, but the machine always paints the exact same shade, deterministically; and you'd like to explore different colors, but somehow you don't know anything about colors, don't know any of their names. So you don't have the language to ask for what you can't name.

Random sampling of colors (without names!) is a solved problem, because we've parameterized the entire universe of colors that can be perceived. It's just a very low dimension manifold, and there's even a computable metric on it such that unit-distances in that metric are what humans say are color differences of equal step size.

Are there more general versions of this? Like: "Here's a list of every human art in history: infer a coordinate system that uniformly metricizes every art that can ever exist?"

I've been telling people to be thankful the posts are blatantly AI.

Soon enough it will be harder and harder to tell, and all their feedback is being scraped to improve the next model.

This already demonstrates 2-3 extra sentences of prompting and you get a completely different style that is harder to call out.

It's interesting how the negative examples all look like mobile game ads.

Which isn't an accident - mobile game ads are tuned studiously on consumers actual preferences and not the preferences of designers. i.e. the people that are likely to spend actual money on the product/service being advertised to prefer the ad being portrayed here as bad.

Bluntly, being able to sidestep the whims and fashions of graphic designers is proving to be a major feature of the AI revolution.

For your basic words-and-dates-with-shapes-and-shit posters, the AI ones are annoying, but I’m not gonna die on a hill over it. The hill I _will_ die on is restaurants using AI generated images of food. No. That needs to be illegal. I thought it _was_ illegal.

This isn’t a web UI, it doesn’t need icons.

But more importantly, if you aren’t the kind of person who could make a halfway decent text only poster before, you are going to make the posters at the top of the article. Those are objectively harder to read than something typed up in word.

You aren’t going to know to tell the AI to “ Go for a clean, unfussy, bright layout with a bold striking spring-themed graphic. Avoid pastel/airbrush/oil style art or images of people.”

That icon+text row is the tell for me too, though I'd blame the prompt more than the model, nobody ever asks for an awkward layout.

Their very first attempt is arguably the best one there. I was surprised they didn't like it much and kept going. Then the "Stamp / Letterpress Style (Modernised)" was the only other good one.

So of the two designs made, only two were good, the rest was quite bad and lost all meaning.

AI posters may or may not have to be horrible, but they absolutely must include [ icon | icon | icon | icon ], apparently

Yeah, and adding an explicit "no sakura, no rising sun" list does half the work.

The second options seem very similar to the popular templates in canvas.

This is one example of how knowledge is still useful, even in the world of AI. If you know about different art movements, aesthetics, etc. you can prompt images using them, and make stuff that doesn't look like the generic slop that uses that recognizable round-corners style.

Some people only have taste in their mouth

Can you tell your AI to not apply piss filter to everything?

All trash, in my opinion. Different flavors of trash.

> They’re OK

No, they aren't.

That post was written by a designer judging designs.

His attention is biased by the practice of seeing and understanding dozens of visual languages. But he doesn't understand that, unlike a painting, a poster isn't the purpose, the end. A painting in a museum exists for itself. A poster in a street exists at the service of a commercial message. The poster isn't the focus or the point, the message is.

He looks for visual languages, but most people would look just for information: what, who, where, when, why. If they need to spend more than a tenth of a second to decode the visual language of a poster then the poster failed.

There is a famous book on UI design whose title defines very well the design principle for things that should face the masses: "Don't make me think".

As a designer, the post author seeks the unexpected. Normal people just overlook and avoid it.

Normal people love the bland and repetitive precisely because it is familiar. That's the reason there are so many more McDonald's and similar franchise chains than fine French/Italian bistros and unique shops. That's why people listen to dumb pop and country music but not Stravinsky. That's why so many people watch Hallmark movies. People choose boredom because that's something they can easily understand.

Peopel are dumb, they don't want to think.

the biggest issue is NO WHITE SPACE.

It did pretty great on the 90s drum-and-bass party version at the end, takes me back! :)

People dont want to write multiple prompts or write a lengthy one. They want to say create poster x for event y. That's it, that's what they get and that's what they take.

Simply, don't use AI to generate posters and pay someone to do it.

Kids are rediscovering typography and pictograms. With AI. Well done!

> Go for a clean, unfussy, bright layout with a bold striking spring-themed graphic. Avoid pastel/airbrush/oil style art or images of people.

This seems to be the crux of the issue. It's not that the AI posters were bad, but has all the hallmarks of low effort. And if the organizer can't be arsed to put effort in their poster, why should anyone think it will be an event worth attending? The quoted prompt is not something someone can think of off the cuff. It requires someone who have seen enough posters to know what they would like and what not to put in. That takes effort. It's called AI slop not because it looks bad (though I do think it is), but no effort is put into them.

AI posters is like using the Papyrus font.

> They’re OK

They are not OK.

So AI slop is in reality prompt slop

Adding a safety pin to the punk design was too much of a cliché.

I wasn't a fan of the Memphis one as it reminds me of the worst eighties and nineties designs.

once again judgment comes into play.

judgement + taste is the difference maker.

But if a designer improves an AI design and I feel it's fine, does that make me strange? If you ran a blind test on this, I think it would come out with high preference...

Only the last poster kind of gave me vibes, the other ones are absolutely soulless and slop.

I guess it works for the target audience.

Most AI-generated art is "good enough" for most one-shot designs by now (though still not [always] as good as a good meat-based artist of course)

The problems right now are:

- Maintaining a consistent and coherent style/aesthetic when you have to generate lots of assets for something. For example sprites in a video game.

- Iterating over a design for more than a few passes. For some reason most models keep degrading the entire image if you keep asking for edits to a specific part of the image. Or, some problems are or become impossible for them to fix no matter how you prompt them.

AI posters are not horrible, they just expose the person who "commissioned" them as trash. In a way, that is a good thing, since you can avoid them more easily.

Well, sometimes AI generates pictures that are not bad. Personally though I am tired of AI slop in general, and I don't want to support it. AI literally kills humans. In some scenarios AI is still useful (e. g. if you write a game, say, in javascript and you don't have any designers helping you out, you could generate images that don't suck, quickly, via AI) but other than that the less I get of AI the better. Google now has that problem with AI - tons of AI slop and fake videos. I realised the AI slop just wastes my time but Google does not offer a simple "do not show me any AI slop" videos. After all they want people to waste their time on youtube, by design. So I now waste my time twice by using Youtube, if I watch an AI slop video.

If only there was a way to precisely control our output so it matches our taste and imagination. Some might call this technology, drawing.

As usual, AI is a tool and will be good in the hands of the wielder. I've been saying this since Stable Diffusion released nearly half a decade ago.