Toupee fallacy.
People here would definitely feel that way.
70% of human beings? They buying the ai shit.
I saw a job listing the other day for an “AI Advocate” (I don’t remember the specific job title). Basically the job was to promote the use of AI products to other companies. It got me thinking that their AI replacements for humans must not be very good if they need a human to promote them, otherwise the AI would be able to successfully sell itself.
This could be said of any other job though. “I guess AI isn’t that good, because it can’t replace ______.” Why would you assume that AI advocate should be especially easy for AI?
AI chats are known for their overconfident persuasiveness, especially when incorrect. IIRC the job was pretty much just yapping that exact type of rhetoric.
In general, salespeople are still employed, as far as I know. AI hasn’t been able to replace them. Perhaps AI is too gullible to the client.
Yupp. Videos like these fit that pretty well. Unfortunate decision, since the toothbat is really useful.
AI is about increasing profits. Consumer choice is not a thing when 99% of companies follow the same profit driven incentives. Reactions like this, while good, are not going to change anything. You cant make change through consumption. You must make change through labor and labor organization.
This sub is just filled with “consumption” based solutions to the point that I feel it is almost negative in trying to fight the actual problems with AI and art.
I want to see more pro union and pro labor posts here. This “change through consumption” crap is really getting old.
You can do both. Make informed decisions about how you spent your money, and foster unions.
Yes. But what is this sub primarily filled with?
Hey, if you don’t have much of a budget that’s fine. What AI indicates is that your thing is either too shitty to photograph, or that you don’t much care what it looks like.
If it looks like trash then kiss my ass
Haha… I started an LLC on Wednesday. I had AI generate a (temporary) company logo for me.
Yesterday, I sent that logo to a real artist and asked them to re-make and improve it because I’m not planning on using AI shit.
If I can afford to spend $75 on a side hustle, any real company that I’m buying shit from better at least be doing the same.
As a graphic designer I… don’t hate that AI exists for that use case. It’s admittedly a pretty nice way to iterate on rough ideas for me and my clients so we can get to a common understanding. But it’s only going to get them 50% of the way there as it is now and I hope that people continue to recognize that.
Except, you literally are describing using AI to save yourself the cost of several rounds of revisions with a graphic designer…
… and then paying a designer…
It’s a side business with $0 in income. There’s no fucking way I’m going more than 2 rounds on revisions as it is. If it’s more than that, I’ll do the art myself and it’ll be shit; but better than nothing. Simply not worth it at $0 income. If AI wasn’t an option to get things started, the artist wouldn’t be getting paid at all because I wouldn’t be hiring an artist.
I don’t think there’s anything actually wrong with what you did, but I also don’t think you should kid yourself that you didn’t use AI shit for your business just because it wasn’t the final logo.
That’s absurd.
There’s a possibility that the artist might come back to me with something different from the AI mockup. We don’t know that yet. I only told them that the logo needs three specific components.
If I ask an AI to give me a premise for a book, write the entire book, delete it before anyone ever reads it, decide on a different premise and write a different book, did I use AI to write the book that people are going to read? No.
So like you didn’t find it useful at all for your business? Like not even to help you clarify your vision to a graphic designer?
I’m not sure yet… maybe a bit, maybe not. When I sent the AI markup over, the exact words I used were, “I’m going to attach the starter logo that AI made for me so that you can reference it. I’d give the AI logo a rating of about a 4 out of 10…”
Pretty much told the artist that the AI art sucks. If using the AI to tell the artist “don’t do this” was efficient, it probably helped a bit and you’d have a point. If the artist just does the same thing the AI did, it wasn’t useful at all but they got $75 out of me anyway.
The one and only time I’ve done consulting for a pharmaceutical company, I was presented with an AI generated ad for a drug. They kept asking what I liked about the image and the only acceptable response was how are you all finding ways to make medicine more impersonable than it already is
If I hear an “AI” voiceover I have the same reaction. Definitely won’t be buying anything from Dr. Squatch.
I mean, even the crappiest advertising literally makes Big Tech trillions of dollars, so unfortunately I don’t think is reality.
This has been my reaction for a while now. And usually, I feel like it does tend to accurately represent the thought put into a product.
When a company barely thinks about their marketing material, (the thing they often require to even make their thing seem like a purchase you “need” in the first place) and just assumes that “AI cool therefore AI good” when making their ad, then yeah, I’m going to be highly skeptical of the thought they put into their actual product.
The only time it wouldn’t raise red flags for me is when it’s used in more of a, I guess you could call it a transitional manner. Like in Coca Cola’s “Masterpiece” ad where they mostly just used it to make the transitions between relatively different scenes look a little more natural, but it was only used for a few frames each time, rather than comprising the vast majority of the promotional material itself.
That ad required many actual talented human artists, and would not have been even physically possible with AI alone, so it evokes a different reaction in my opinion.
Of course, then Coca Cola marketing execs released their complete stock footage-looking AI slop ad a bit later, so it doesn’t seem like that’s a trend that’ll hold up.
When a company uses ai I put them on my blacklist, I don’t touch their slop ever again.
When people use ai I know to never interact with them, because it’s a waste of my time.
When a user online posts ai slop, I block them so their shit doesn’t show up in my feed.
I used ai image gen back when it first released. I don’t post it, and I was looking for it to do something very specific that it couldn’t, and probably still can’t, do. Fish fins, for example, are a struggle when applied to humans, so mermaids end up a mess. At least back when I was using it to muse, it was a good MUSE, but horrible at making what I had in mind (I’m aphantasic, so I’m not that picky with visuals, but these suuuuucked)
I think I’m separate from what you describe, tho, because I’m using it as a muse (good proportions in different positions and stuff like that) rather than it doing the work for me? Plus being just that once; I’m not doing this actively, but it did help.
But idk, I’ve used ai image gen. I recognize I’m part of the problem, but in my defense that’s all I used it for, and never since that first muse session when ai images were -the thing of the week- where I tried to get ai to do basic things and it couldn’t so I asked for increasingly niche images and it failed at basically every mid-step
Actually the more a company spends on advertising the more it’s going to be a cheap scammy product. Have you ever bought anything off TV? I don’t recommend it. $29 minimum for things that should be in a $5 misc bin at Walmart. Why? You are paying for their marketing.
Pro tip you don’t actually have to normalize this reaction because high effort media will always stand apart from low effort media, regardless of how it was created. My problem with “normalizing this reaction” is because I literally know dozens of artists who have been falsely accused of using AI generated imagery when they literally just are surrealist photo collagists and idiots automatically think that anything in that style is AI and harass actual artists for their actual work that they made with their actual hands
