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.
The biggest problem that I have with most AI posters is that they are too busy, you have to look for information instead of seeing it popping right away.
Amateurs posters of before AI didn't have this problem. White background, the important info in big letters, maybe one clipart or to. So I'm not talking about how pro artists could make a better job, but even the small local non-profit used to produce better posters. Not in the sense of "better looking", but in the sense that they were more readable.
At least the examples of this blog are more readable than what we usually see.
This is very true and after rendering 100 prompts twice for https://john.hartnup.uk/poster-prompts/ I realised that the prompts could be improved by asking for much less clutter. The best examples on there pick out one main visual subject, but many of them are too fussy.
I may do a V2 one of these days.
Clutter comes with the territory to some extent though. I was recently asked to do a real world PTA fayre poster, and the client (my wife) very firmly wanted 12+ attractions mentioned on the poster. Tombola, hook a duck, bar, BBQ, blah, blah, blah as well as date, location, sponsor, ...
To get a really clean design, you need to edit it down to the essentials. I don't know what pro designers do - convince the client to say less?
Unless the prompt says otherwise, AI will try to get a visual element in for every single word too.
Pro designers are generally paid because they’re extremely good editors. And they’re an intermediary between clients and their consumers.
So when you put the capability in the hands of the client without the editing (or taste) and no way to evaluate the result, you get the passable, homogenous thing.
It mostly doesn’t matter because there’s no economic incentive for it to matter, which is why much of our aesthetic world is the way it is.
Designers having that artistic taste, and clients lacking it, is exactly why I don't think generative AI is going to do much to replace (skilled) designers anytime soon. Likewise for other creative professions, and indeed for knowledge work in general.
Taste is a great solution for abundance, so I agree. Also, there's definitely a rubberband effect where products & designs need to differentiate on their design to stand out in a homogenous world, and you truly do need creative professionals having that judgment. Even using AI as a tool, you have to have the sayable vocabulary (at the very least) to agitate the aesthetic status quo.
And low-skill graphic design had already been mostly replaced by Canva, so I don't think AI is really having as much impact on the design industry as people might suppose.
Knowing what is in the realm of possibility can help you get much more out of genAI.
For example, you have to know about a style to know to ask for it or some variation on it.
I think we ALREADY at the point when AI is capable to replace like 99.7% of designers. It is only a question of market inertia and personal brands that prevent it from happening right now.
I think this generalizes to a lot of professional work.
LLMs are very good at satisfying the requirements you give them. They’re much worse at knowing which requirements should be challenged, reframed, or ignored because you don’t know enough about the field to know what actually matters. That’s why they’re such force multipliers for experts: the expert can spot when the model chose the wrong abstraction or checked every box and still produced something bad. A novice often can’t. I’d argue the model mostly raises the novice toward “average.”
“Tell it to push back” doesn’t really solve this either. Too little and you get “aye aye captain!” Too much and you get Opus 5 / claudise, where it seems compelled to find something wrong with everything.
I see this in a Home Assistant project I’ve mostly vibe coded. I can ask Codex to make the kitchen brighter on school days and it’ll happily implement something. But maybe an HA expert would say “you really shouldn’t model it this way.” Maybe they’d even question HA itself. The model could conceivably know that too, but it only sees a tiny slice of my world. There are infinite side quests it could raise, and a good professional’s real skill is knowing which one matters enough to interrupt you about and which 99% to silently ignore.
>It mostly doesn’t matter because there’s no economic incentive for it to matter
Very generous way to say "executive greed has drained bespoke design out of society. I've been seeing more videos on such a topic, but this one was by far the best one I've seen yet: https://youtu.be/HgjXjPP_p3s?is=yVsto8SCnY-SsnVY
(Just in case, don't let the thumbnail fool you. The car simply frames as it expands to general society).
I tried to give this video a good-faith watch, but found myself disagreeing with much of the evidence, conclusions, and research. It seems to be trying to diagnosing cleanslop — the minimalist and flat trend, which renders poorly as being clinical and lifeless. My point was that economics drive aesthetic, and in that framing, I think we both agree corporations will deliver the least amount of design tolerable.
Design-differentiated products still exist (Apple as mentioned, IKEA, Nike, Linear to name a few), but they're outnumbered in the current landscape and arguably still greedy.
>Design-differentiated products still exist (Apple as mentioned, IKEA, Nike, Linear to name a few), but they're outnumbered in the current landscape and arguably still greedy.
I believe that was ultimately what my response wanted to emphasize, and partially the call to action of the video. There is great design out there, but you need to wander through oceans of slop to find it. I had no clue about "Superblocks" until that video.
Likewise, to link the ideas back to Herr; AI is creating an ocean of slop that will make it nearly impossible to find the truly innovative used of AI out there. Curation was already a hard problem pre-AI and this only increases such difficulty by magnitudes. Among reducing said slop (which is nearly impossible now), the call to action is to have proper tastemakers lead the charge and bring out good ideas. Not just ones that generate the most money. Curation by definition almost always lowers view traffic to increase customer satisfaction, and that's not something our ad-based datascape wants.
That's a really backwards explanation for styles that executives commissioned, funded, and popularized in the first place
I think it's in fact forward thinking, in that modern executives lost the taste their older elites had. Or at least they fired the tastemakers for those who pleased them personally, to the sacrifice of proper design. Probably a bit of both, along with other factors.
The more charitable perspective (that falls more important point #2) is simply that taste is different now among the modern billionaire. Someone who can wander onto a stage in a turtleneck and denim jeans simply won't be the type of person who wants a "loud and bold" car. But they might still want to say that they had Ferrari make it. Jony Ive's perspective on design may simply be the product of the people and environments he surrounded himself with.
I can't remember where, but there was an article about the luxury homes billionaires are building themselves. They tent to have he design aesthetic of a bland, but expensive, corporate hotel.
De-tracked link: https://youtu.be/HgjXjPP_p3s
As one of the AI-wielding amateurs, I got positive feedback from an audience member on this Ai-gen poster for a talk I gave earlier this summer https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MaawQcupC5XHqWBiTujSpKOKohx...
The clutter is there yes - it's not a sparse 1970s kitsch cultural event promo or 1970s sci-fi book cover (random example I found in 2 minutes https://www.etsy.com/listing/715136429/david-bowie-moonage-d... ) that's for sure - but I wouldn't want to remove any of mine's elements as each one informs the viewer at a glance their decision whether to attend or not.
Just taking one of your prompts and adding
> N.B. Make sure all the important information pops out (is visible at first glance) like an expert designer would, the information is more important than the design.
Already have me a much better result with the 'Arts & Crafts style', but N=1 so YMMV
I’ve been working on a thing where a bunch of raw content goes through a summarization pipeline and then gets manipulated with a bunch of checks to clean up copy and reduce clutter.
And then the visuals get added with a set of fixed templates. It’s not fully there but is reducing a LOT of the clutter.
Some of the results are even what I’d call good (and I’m a designer). I think a good harness could make non-cluttered results, if one of the AI labs was interested in a “less is more” approach.
Those posters all look pretty damn good to me. Thanks for that page. Super helpful for me and I need that right now.
Are these "fayre" events some kind of UK thing? I also didn't know offhand what "tombola" is and it comes across like it's part of a collection of standard activities for a "fayre" that have no cultural significance to me.
(Canadian here. Not everything is shared across the Commonwealth, I guess.)
Yes, fayres are popular in the UK especially in schools and small villages. A Tombola is a type of raffle where people buy tickets and the winning numbers are picked from a rotating drum. Normally done to raise small amounts of money for local causes.
Say you want to add an artist or change some information. Regeneration will end up with another poster altogether, right?
A new image at a technical level, but all modern autoregressive image models are skilled at only changing what is absolutely necessary if asked to make edits.
There is very often a certain softness to the fonts in generated images. Why is that and is there a name for it?
Thinking more, I thinking the softness is actually inconsistency. Because the letters are generated, no two letters will be exact same and if zoomed in some edge might not even be perfectly straight. Another thing we can do these days (I think author should really try out in V2) is to use code to generate the . You may have seen examples of generating Javascript based videos with Claude. Same can be done with posters. Generate a font sheet and use that in code generated poster with image generated background.
Well, low-stakes clients are usually poor clients because they’re clueless and overly demanding.
Real designers would avoid them in the first place.
And that’s why they want to use AI.
Tangent I guess, it would be interesting to have like a AI/not AI quiz. They still look AI to me but idk if it's because I know
It should be clear in the text, disguising as non-AI is not a goal. It's allowed to look like AI. It's just trying not to look shit.
And that default look - that might not be shit either. Except we've now seen it repeated so many times that we're sick of it.
Am I biased to thinking it looks like shit because I know it's ai though and I think the AI look is overdone?
[dead]
Suppose you have a budget of $20.
Do you think you will find good artists working for that fee?
I don't think so, unless they are working to prove a point -- that humans can be as good as AI.
And that's the problem:
Humans can be as good as AI, but they are much more expensive.
Maybe you have a friend that's trying to get started in design and could do a favor for a chance to build a portfolio.
Would someone who's "trying to get started in design" be able to make anything as good as these AI posters? And how would they survive in a world where machines can do their job for free?
I suppose human artists will continue to exist, but they will be like chess players: they will continue to exist simply because they love art, but they won't be able to compete with AI.
ETA: less than 2 years.
Well what's better ? I have so many pictures of posters of old events or storefronts saved on my phone because they were so astronomically bad it'd have been better to not have any poster at all. Today's AI makes it look even worse but I'm hopeful that in five years we'll all live in a world generally more agreeable to look at and not "concrete with pink and yellow fluo paper smashed on top of it" like https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/music-poster-wall.html or https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/france-poster-wall.html?ps... because the cost of making things enjoyable with more colour and detail will have come down. Maybe we can finally go back to Art Nouveau if the cost of making it comes down!
For what it’s worth i think the Bi Nuu poster you share here as reference for something badly designed looks really cool.
Poster design like any visual or artistic field will always cater to conflicting individual tastes - for some it looks great, others hate it.
I like Art Nouveau but a lot of stuff in that style looks kitschy to me.
Your links are supposed to be examples of bad posters? They're awesome!
> we'll all live in a world generally more agreeable to look at and not "concrete with pink and yellow fluo paper smashed on top of it" like https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/music-poster-wall.html or https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/france-poster-wall.html?ps...
Sorry buf I'd take these posters over your “generally more agreeable ” homogeneous slop literally any day.
As I said, "Today's AI makes it look even worse". But the post makes me hopeful than in a couple years, actually good graphic design can come out from AI. It still looks terrible and AI even for the best posters it highlights, but noticeably less than the random ice cream or coffee shop where I live with fully ai-generated interior design, memorabilia and menus.
I’d rather look at the most amateurish indie posters plastered all over a wall than waste even a second looking at machine-generated nonsense.
> too busy, you have to look for information
Have you ever seen a bus schedule, or a parking sign, or a list of events at a local library or an “open hours” sign at a restaurant? Those are 99.9% unreadable, busy, and you have to look for information. And even then it’s not always clear if you got it right. And that was all before the AI.
There is a difference between busy for no reason and busy because of information density. The busy examples in this article aren’t information dense. They just have a ton of different flower types, random animals, background characters, unrelated structures, many different colors and many different shades of those colors, etc. But the information they are trying to communicate is minimal.
A bus schedule or a parking sign is very information dense. It’s trying to communicate a lot in a limited space and as a result require getting used to.
Those examples are filled with real info. The AI posters are filled with meaningless three word slogans, lists of meaningless copy and art where everything is labeled.
None of those are primarily marketing tools, they're things you use after you've already decided you want to use the product. They don't need to grab and hold attention and convince you that they have what you want, they just need to convey information.
Bus schedules are not a good comparison because they have to fit a ton of information into a single page. And I disagree that they are unreadable. Speaking as someone who commuted by bus for years in many different cities, they tend to be quite easy to read because the tabular layouts make them very easy to scan quickly. Once your eyes anchor on the page, you can find what you're looking for without effort.
> Amateurs posters of before AI didn't have this problem.
As someone who made posters in 2000, I respectfully disagree.
The biggest problem in my view is: It's not editable by hand. There is no production data I could open in InDesign, Illustrator or Photoshop (Layers) and change things to my or my clients liking.
I am not familiar with the field, but if there isn't a way to have LLM's generate graphics as editable InDesign or Illustrator files (maybe something Adobe will sell you?), I am sure there will be soon.
This is a problem which is entirely solvable by existing and new design/production apps. Instead of working entirely with raster image agents should programmatically edit the target file format.
You could try having, say Astra, use one of these programs via computer use to design it. I haven't tried it, but I hear it is really good at computer use. Might even have more of a dialogue as it creates, so dictating choices at each stage. Would take longer, but does not require someone who has expertise in the tool, just good design notion.
It can probably ransform most to html.
Wait 6 months...
That also reminds me of AI-generated text, which is also (when done without caring) barely readable because of the useless noise mixed the relevant information that a human that proofread the text would have thrown out.
Technically, AI can introduce rounds of fact-checking, proofreading, etc.
But even without that, AI-generated text is already better than what most humans can write -- particularly when they need something fast, cheap and good.
(It might not be "excellent" -- but humans wouldn't be able to make it fast and cheap...)
People act like making a poster is this absurd Sisyphean task that takes a degree in art to produce.
You don’t need to hire an artist, you don’t need AI. Just download Affinity for free, find a nice font and color palate, and put text on the page. I’ve done my own event posters and they take less than an hour to produce with next to zero prior experience and look massively more appealing than AI slop.
Using a tool where you only fill the blanks in some generic templates made by other humans sounds awfully a lot like what AI already does...
There's an amazing viral twitter thread where someone claimed a real Monet painting was an AI generated imitation, and it got an avalanche of comments from people who claimed it was an obvious fake and a poor imitation at that.
It's not tracking a real thing as much as people would like to think.
This is exactly the problem. Most of the time when people criticise the output of genAI, what they’re actually commenting on is the ethics of AI rather than the output of it. And they then attempt to use the demonstration as a proof of their point rather than forming an unbiased opinion of the output based on its own merit.
Now I’m not saying there isn’t legitimate criticisms that can be made about the ethics of AI, I’m highly concerned about the problems that AI brings too. But that’s a separate argument entirely.
It’s a little like people who are pompous about expensive wine, whisky’s, etc and then fail blind taste tests (plenty of studies there too).
I've generally been very impressed with genAI artwork in "impressionist" styles. But thinking about how the diffusion models work, that seems like exactly what you'd expect them to be good at. Things that call for perfectly straight lines and constrained patterns (and explicitly symbolic elements, like text) seem to be considerably harder but apparently very doable now.
There is still obvious genAI slop being put out there all the time, and you can tell it's genAI slop because it's slop: even doing something at that level by hand would be more time and effort than anyone would bother putting in unless it's paid work that then justifies getting it right and doing it professionally. But now that the sloption exists, there's a flood of people taking it.
Prose, on the other hand, is another story. It became possible to produce "grammatically correct, academic-sounding and generally using words to mean what they actually mean" very quickly, but years later it's still rarely if ever good, it just goes through varying different quirks. Maybe part of this is that the training data can't properly reflect what the target audience was for various pieces of text. A lot of it, surely, is that many people are easily impressed by "grammatically correct, academic-sounding and generally using words to mean what they actually mean", and don't themselves have much of a sense for actually good writing.
I don't think this is true. There are people who claim everything is AI – maybe even to bolster their ego.
But for a lot of things I can with high probability discern between AI and human in every day appearance and I know many other people can as well. One of the things I look for is specifically certain types of extreme... not just flaws... just overall atrocity. When I read posts submitted to HN I often realize that something is bad writing before I can specify this to AI text. Pangram almost always agrees with me. Here is a recent example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49715657
I don't doubt that there are certain scoped tasks that certain models are quite good at. But in my every day life I constantly encounter AI slop that is so bad that I take it as a personal insult that someone thought it would be okay to subject me to it; to presume that I am so tasteless and numb and have no quality standard whatsoever.
I mean just look at the example posters at the beginning of the article. "The problem with these is not so much that they’re bad." Yes, yes it is. They are horrible. I cannot understand how anyone can describe them as anything but that.
> But for a lot of things I can with high probability discern between AI and human in every day appearance and I know many other people can as well.
It’s easy to say that when you already know the answer. But my point is people frequently misattribute stuff as being AI generated when it wasn’t. The GPs Twitter example is proof of this. And you only have to look at the number of times people accuse someone of being AI on HN because they happen to use em dash or an Oxford comma (or any other writing style that was part of the corpus models were trained on), and it’s pretty clear that “obvious tells” are just guesswork.
There was a study years ago where a group of individuals were given white wine with red food colouring, and they were asked to describe the wine. All the participants described plumb and other notes that are exclusive to red wines.
These weren’t dumb people. And the people who claim to spot “obvious AI” aren’t dumb either. It’s just very easy to identify tells if you believe you already know the answer. Unfortunately that’s just how fucked up our human psychology is.
> One of the things I look for is specifically certain types of extreme... not just flaws... just overall atrocity.
So, please forgive me, but this means that you are good at finding out some patterns in AI output. There are always a lot of false positive and negatives, and I haven’t found a convincing study showing that people are good at finding AI in general.
What helps is that the market is very concentrated so if you know GPT-isms and Claude-isms that’s basically the current situation covered. It does not mean that you can reliably identify AI in general.
How do you know you can discern AI vs human with high probability? You need some external source of truth to judge that, otherwise all you know is that you can discern bad, obvious AI. See also https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toupee_fallacy
I can say that my false positive rate is very low which is enough in this context.
I’d expect false positives to be low. Bad AI has a distinctive style and is easy to pick up on. Just like bad toupees are easily recognized. The false negative rate would be far more interesting.
The false negative rate would be interesting but is irrelevant in this context. I was replying to a comment claiming that most people take issue with the ethics of GenAI rather than the quality and that people have a high false positive rate. I raise myself and my experience with people I know as a counter example.
There might be AI generated things in my every day life that I do not recognize as AI, but that's not what's being discussed.
“I can tell because I judge that my judgement is correct.”
How did you check? What was your oracle when you thought something was AI and when you did not?
I mean, this situation is a textbook case of ground for a lot of common fallacies, starting with confirmation bias. We need to remember that our brain wants to be tricked. If you think you are special, you are not. You’re just not aware of it and even more prone to falling into these traps.
How do you know that?
I trust Pangram's stats to be a good baseline.
Hey Claude, re word this until it passes pangram as not AI written.
As I explained in another comment the false negative rate is irrelevant in this context.
They are pretty shit, but the main problem is that they are the generic style of the model. So that’s what everyone gets by default. If they were a one off they’d still be bad, but at least unique.
In my world view, the phrase "People are stupid" explains almost everything. Very few people are actually able to think for themselves. The vast majority are basically just sheep, they think whatever the media, their colleagues, friends etc tell them to think. They don't fact check, they don't think critically, they can't understand a well reasoned argument, they basically just believe things based on how much they like whoever said it. They won't accept evidence that disproves those beliefs.
They don't care about the truth, it's all just about being part of the right herd.
This just sounds like an im14andthisisdeep rant. Everyone is stupid, except you, of course, who are enlightened and detached from "the herd."
No, it's not just me. There's a lot of people who are much more intelligent than me, in many ways.
But if you grab an average person off the street they're overwhelmingly likely to be pretty daft and not know much about anything.
Just look at how many people in the US vote for that orange clown even after the complete farce of his previous term.
The problem with this mindset is that it isn’t very useful or actionable, regardless of how true it is.
Maybe try differentiating a bit? You could see if there certain scenarios that leave room for a better outcome for both you and a less intelligent person. You might even learn something interesting.
Right now, I’d say you are painting with an overly broad brush.
P.S. Have you done any soul searching to see if this is largely a comforting thought that helps assuage the frustrations of dealing with the BS of life? If you are open to the idea, might be valuable.
Yeah, it's not actionable. I can't fix the fact that most people are stupid. But it does provide some minor amount of comfort. It explains why the world is as it is. It explains why the most powerful nation in the world is currently lead by the world's biggest fucking clown. It explains why we can't deal with climate change - the people who make money from it simply use their puppet media to tell all the idiots what they want them to think, and here we are.
It explains why religion is so prevalent - anyone with any amount of critical thinking ability can see that religion is a bunch of bullshit. Yet most people in the world are religious, because all it takes is someone with a little authority to tell people something and they'll just believe it and that's that, you can't reason them out of it because they didn't reason themselves into it. They were just born into this herd and that's where they intend to stay.
It explains why big "green" organizations are and have been against nuclear energy - even though nuclear energy has been the obvious answer to climate change the people who want the world to take climate change seriously have been against nuclear, despite the fact that nuclear was the obvious answer to climate change. They simply don't/didn't know that nuclear was clean energy, and they never took a few minutes to learn some stuff to realize that in fact nuclear energy is clean energy. Obviously it doesn't solve the entire problem but it would have been a huge improvement over all the coal we've been burning. But they didn't know, because they're a bunch of idiots who don't know anything about anything, they just parrot whatever they've been told and that's that and here we are.
And that's the explanation for everything. Politics is just a popularity contest. Whoever says the shit the hordes of sheep have been conditioned to want to hear, get elected. If you grab a random person off the street they most likely couldn't even tell you how bracket tax works but you can be sure as shit they'd have strong opinions about taxes. And those opinions will most likely be straight up factually wrong, based on an incorrect view of how taxes work.
Everyone's just wrong about everything, nobody knows anything about anything. A few people have a decent understanding of how things work but nobody listens.
And again yeah, it's not actionable. There's nothing to be done about this, it's just the way it is. I can't stop the entire human population from being a bunch of religious cultist morons. That's just what they are. But at least knowing that and accepting it helps me keep my sanity in a world where everyone makes the wrong decisions at every turn and everything is clearly going to shit while everyone's acting like everything's fine. Except of course all the inconsequential bullshit the sheep bicker about like immigration and taxes windmills and data centers and whatever else the media has them bickering about to distract them from the shit that actually matters.
> Yet most people in the world are religious, because all it takes is someone with a little authority to tell people something and they'll just believe it and that's that, you can't reason them out of it because they didn't reason themselves into it.
Yeah, we simply should not forget that there is very different types of religions. Some religions, for example has it main belief that climate change is a big problem for the Earth and Humanity.
> It explains why big "green" organizations are and have been against nuclear energy - even though nuclear energy has been the obvious answer to climate change
Exactly. I mean my model explain that, not yours. Like in any other religion generally churches exists not to solve the MAIN PROBLEM, even if the religion says otherwise. Because churches are hierarchical structures, and on the top will end up pretty SMART people, who mainly focus on solving their personal problems, and not the MAIN PROBLEM of their religion. Often they even does not believe in existence of the problem at all.
> Whoever says the shit the hordes of sheep have been conditioned to want to hear, get elected.
I don't know. If we look at the elections of the "world's biggest fucking clown", it was more describing of his opponents. But he still got elected, twice.
[flagged]
and followed up with a classic "I know you are but what am I" by you lol
this thread looks like it's folding in on itself
I had to talk back, but if insults and down votes solved anything there would be no insults or down votes.
Why did you have to?
Well, why did you?
No, no one would argue that.
Such a world view will justify any belief, because the internet will give you ample supply of the dumbest, most ill-considered opposition to any belief you hold.
Doesn't guarantee there isn't a steel version of their straw out there that you're deliberately ignoring.
If I had seen the steel version I would have considered it. But all I see is strawmen, as far as the eye can see. An ocean of strawmen, with a few steel islands here and there.
Nobody has time to fact check every single fact we need to act on.
Have you read every single study about the last vaccine you took and what the positives and negatives are and where potential problems are and so on? Of course not, we trust that the experts have done enough. Same with learning physics or driving over a bridge and so many other things.
Yeah, exactly. But many people vehemently believe vaccines are dangerous and so on. Similarly, a common talking point right now are data centers and their power and water usage. Just yesterday I was told that AI data centers pollute more than anything else. Yet when I took 10 seconds to Google it I found that data centers represented about 0,5% of power consumption and I know that electricity in general is less than half of all pollution so clearly data centers don't pollute that much. But people will parrot these types of "facts" without even taking 10 seconds to double check.
I agree completely.
I found this very funny until it made me very sad.
Yeah, it is extremely sad. It's why we're currently in the process of going extinct. We, as a species, know what we should be doing. But what we should be doing is not what we are doing, because what we are doing depends on the popularity contest that is politics, and politics has absolutely nothing to do with what we know we should be doing.
> Yeah, it is extremely sad. It's why we're currently in the process of going extinct.
We're not going extinct, LOL. We're more resilient than cockroaches. As a species we will survive nuclear apocalypse, climate changes short of turning the planet into Venus and even the collapsing fertility rate.
https://youtu.be/KHbzSif78qQ?si=xWprUIdcae2uo1jd
Exactly the video I was expecting it to be. Same herd.
You've been here 8 years, so... you're just as much part of the same herd as me :-)
[dead]
Yes, I think this is exactly right. The labelling of a thing as “AI Generated” or “AI Assisted” makes the viewer perceive it as worse in quality. And they really do think it’s worse.
It’s similar to a well known finding about price: people value things that are more expensive more, and tend to think they are of higher quality. You can give people the same thing for a high price or for free and they’ll say the high priced one is amazing the free one is lacklustre.
It’s like an optical illusion driven by labelling.
By many people’s criteria it automatically is worse, because part of what they value in art is thinking about the artist and their intentions behind their creation.
Similarly people may view an IKEA book stand as worse quality than one built by hand even if the hand built one has flaws. Or they might view a microwaved meal as worse than that created by a home chef.
People value the human intention and care that goes into creations. Without that it’s worse even if the output is fundamentally the same.
A drawing by my young niece may not have the same finesse as an AI generated one but I like it a whole lot more
>By many people’s criteria it automatically is worse, because part of what they value in art is thinking about the artist and their intentions behind their creation.
I think that's true enough for what it is but, as the other commenter also noted, a bit of a different topic here. The Monet example shows that people work backward from AI to direct conclusions about the quality of the work itself, which isn't the same as agreeing a work is by all appearances equivalent to Monet but lacking in underlying deliberation.
One can inform the other to be sure but that conversation exists in parallel with another conversation that's a straight one-shot assessment of quality.
> By many people’s criteria it automatically is worse, because part of what they value in art is thinking about the artist and their intentions behind their creation
That’s a bit separate to what I’m talking about, but I don’t think there are many of these people. I think this whole thing is about AI anxiety coupled with American social norms, and as soon as one of those things changes the artists are going to be left out in the cold again.
> I don’t think there are many of these people
I think there are lots of people who value art for the ideas of the artist. There are also lots of people who think that they value something like quality of brushstrokes, and these are the same people, mostly. I mean they don't know what they like it for, but the raw graphical data is what's in front of them, so they ascribe their preference to its (supposedly) measurable qualities.
Hence this thing about I can tell it's AI because its graphical quality is bad. In a way that's correct though! The artist's ideas are hinted at in the brushstrokes (or whatever other graphical aspects). In the gen AI picture you get hints of a phony mind. It becomes hollow when you know that, or when you think you know that. It's not delivering the cultural experience, if the hints you pick up on are false.
I think you’d be surprised by how many people feel that way but it’s hard to say for sure.
What did you think about my other examples? (The bookshelf and the microwaved meal)
There’s the idea of preferences and revealed preferences. People say their preferences and then their actions show what they really prefer. I suspect AI generated content, if curated by a human, would end up being people’s revealed preferences. There are a lot of bad artists and writers and whatever out there, AI would handily beat them.
I think at least for your niece’s drawings example, you’d probably prefer AI art if you had to choose one or the other until the end of time, not just one or two drawings that go on your refrigerator.
Thats part of the issue. People prefer human made art and then people feel tricked when they find out it’s AI art.
I would definitely choose my niece’s drawing for all time. Do you have young family members? That seems like a bizarre perspective to me.
I do! And goodness no, nice and all as they might be I’d go mad if they were the only art I could ever consume ever again!
But of course with the gen-AI stuff you are getting put in touch with the real ideas of real artists (e.g. Miyazaki), it's just that they've been anonymized and put through a blender.
Ahh I misunderstood the hypothetical then. I assumed I was picking one piece to keep and display forever but I could still enjoy other art.
I’d go mad if the only art available was AI art as well!
Revealed preference is a very real and useful phenomenon. But it seems to be increasingly overapplied as a convenient cop-out in scenarios where it's unclear any authentic preference is being revealed (e.g. due to confounding factors or active manipulation) and to exaggerate the extent to which real agency exists (externally predetermined outcomes).
Such as with RLHF-boosted writing from LLMs, where side by side comparisons of human vs. AI writing have been used as proof of revealed preference for AI. But an A/B test of a few sentences doesn't mean that someone would enjoy reading a 5000 word blog post in the same style, as the densely packed rhetorical flourishes become exhausting and repetitive tells start to jump off the page. Nor does it capture the signal/noise problem where despite technical ability and incredible verbosity, realization sets in that nothing in 2000 words has said anything at all while continually stringing the reader along. A side by side comparison with a few AI posters might be preferred in a five 5 minute test, but seeing the same visual elements from three frontier models in a loop on every surface for your entire life could quickly become actively repulsive.
And the problem with agency arises when limited freedom exists to truly make a different choice because the available options are externally determined. I've seen the argument made on HN that people's revealed preference is for AI maximalism, pointing to the fact that consumers keep buying products with AI, hundreds of billions of dollars are spent building new datacenters every year, workers (including creatives!) and students report using AI for daily work, etc.
But consumers aren't really given true choices that could reveal a real preference. The tech giants behind the phone duopoly have crammed AI features into both OS choices. With few exceptions every large company made an "AI strategy" their main focus since 2023 and competed to put chatbots and GenAI features into every inch of their product lines. Hyperscalers started a bidding war on datacenter buildouts in the expectation of future demand back when really only ChatGPT had any real market penetration outside the tech industry. Students and workers feel pressure to keep up with their peers by using AI to avoid getting fired/worse grades, artists struggling for work worry clients will go elsewhere if they take the time for their normal process.
Revealed preference when used haphazardly could be used to come to absurd conclusions like "people want to get scammed", "people like to be overweight", etc. Broadly and incautiously applied it just becomes a way to justify any given status quo as inherently optimally and reflective of collective will. With a creepy paternalistic implication that regardless of what you think you believe, forcing you do something against your will is secretly what you really want, and will make you happy even if you pretend not to realize it.
It's pretty questionable if a preference truly exists as "revealed" for something like AI art when it's preconditioned on active deception. An AI art-hater who gets tricked into picking AI doesn't mean they're lying/confused and actually love it. That sort of reasoning can get uncomfortably close to an anti-democratic argument for mass manipulation of people who can't be trusted to advocate in their own best interests.
Yeah, but the issue is we are getting constantly exposed to a barrage of really low quality obvious AI generated content. Except a lot of people seem to not know that it's AI and interact with like it's real. The people posting it are being reward by monetization platforms.
Low quality baiting content was a problem before but the barrier to entry has been significantly reduced and the.amount of content is growing quickly.
You can see it here in the discussions for about half the stories. It gets sidetracked into people talking past each other.
The thing is, people are really bad at judging this, except for the most stereotypical cases. You have people crying wolf the moment you use "genuinely" or a dash. Different people use different criteria for their personal heuristics and the result is threads full of tedious, completely irrelevant comments from people in a crusade. People don’t seem to realise that we are very good at tricking ourselves and that a lot of the patterns we think we recognise are actually just noise.
I've seen two resdit threads where people insisted the hands were wrong, and people took photos of their hands in the same pose.
But, then, people did this for digital editing before. Insisted there were "clear signs of photoshop", from people who never opened that app.
Earlier HN discussions about it (both got flagged):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48158110
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48134400
Unsurprising that they're both flagged. HN commenters really, really don't like to think about a world where they can't tell the difference between real and AI.
One commenter really nailed it[1]: "We didn't get worse at judging art. We just got better at doubting everything."
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48158160
I’d say it’s more about confronting the ways in which art is just posturing, hype, and status games, and what it’s like to find out you’re in an “Emperor’s New Clothes” situation.
Makes sense, no? That’s a pretty terrible world
Did you think the same thing when Photoshop became mainstream?
Did you even realize basically all commercial images you've seen for the last 30 years were already heavily modified?
There is a big difference between a real image or video that has been modified and one that was created out of thin air via AI
Can you articulate those differences?
Most people aren't aware of the prevalence of stock imagery during the 2000s. AI is just synthetic stock images, which I have zero problem with.
Artists with taste are the ones creating the best AI images, just they were the ones who photoshopped the best things out of stock images when that was the main mode, and just as they created the best stuff when everything was manual typesetting and dark room photography.
That assumes that AI is only used in place of stock imagery.
In reality it is seeping into our lives at an alarming rate which I worry is disrupting our shared sense of reality (which was already tenuous.)
AI has capabilities that were impossible (or very difficult before.) You could easily generate a realistic video of me saying terrible things or kicking a puppy or doing a pornographic act. You could clone my voice and call my grandma asking for money. It’s very hard to tell what is real now and it will get harder as the capabilities improve.
These tools are also much more accessible than photo editing software. Before, few people had the skill to create realistic fakes. Now anyone can do it. This has led to a flood of fake images, videos, and text online. This crowds out real humans and makes it hard to know what is real. My older relatives especially have Facebook feeds filled with fake content they think is real.
The capabilities combined with the scale make it hard to know what is real in a way Photoshop never did.
Not all HN commenters; it's only a tiny extremist faction, which unfortunately is also the most vocal about it.
In fact it’s only tracking the quality of the produced image
Every single person I’ve asked, and I’ve asked hundreds, say that knowing it was AI irrespective of anything else was enough to think it was bad.
There’s millions of genai images that people aren’t commenting on because they don’t know it’s AI.
> knowing it was AI irrespective of anything else was enough to think it was bad.
That's prejudice.
The definition of prejudice requires the judgment to be unfair.
Do you think it’s unfair for people to dislike AI generated art based on their principles?
Unfair in this context is judging the art without even looking at it.
You don’t think it’s fair to factor how art was created into your judgment?
Factor? That's not what was described: "knowing it was AI irrespective of anything else."
And no - I don't think it's fair to call the art bad when in fact what you mean is you don't like the way it was made. Saying "I don't like AI art" is not the same as "This piece is shit", which is how it is almost always framed.
Which is extremely socially acceptable currently and I don’t see that changing anytime soon
HEH. Well... so long as you agree it's prejudice... that's a good start.
Biased evaluation is the default human behavior so it’s not saying as much as you think it is
All I'm saying is that it's prejudice. And it is.
As GP perhaps implied, "prejudice" is "biased evaluation" with a negative tone — if you are looking to be fully objective, a different term might be better.
Monet got Seinfeld Effected.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/seinfeld-effect
> claimed a real Monet painting was an AI generated imitation
This is like the transvestigator creeps who think they can tell with 100% accuracy who is trans but they are regularly fooled by pictures of cis women when seeded with the notion that they might be trans.
Some AI is obvious. Some much less so, and a lot of non-AI content is being caught up in the amateur dragnets.
One version of this I really loved was some viral clip that I believe was like a local newscast where one guy who really seemed to dislike vegan products was challenged to tell the difference between a real meat product and a vegan alternative, I think sausage or something. And he made a big performance of how instantly he recognized the meat in comparison to the vegan product only to be shocked to learn, after he confidently declared that one of the two dishes was meat, that both dishes were plant-based.
If nothing else, simply as a matter of self respect you've got to make your peace with a certain amount of healthy uncertainty if even just to avoid making a fool of yourself.
But more importantly, it's important to be honest with yourself about what you actually know versus what you're very motivated to believe. Because I think AI equals bad is poisoning some people's ability to talk about this in a healthy way.
I've worked with some of the top designers in the world. I don't think that AI will beat them (for now), but the examples in his sample page[0] beat the junk that I've seen a lot of non-top-designers do.
As he states, he isn't trying to make stuff that doesn't "look like AI did it," he just wants to introduce variety, and has proposed a disciplined way to do that.
[0] https://john.hartnup.uk/poster-prompts/
can you please list some of the people you worked with? I really appreciate good design and am always looking for great artists that I don’t know about yet, thanks.
Pentagram and DDO.
Kinda pricey, though.
Going through pentagram's site, their shakespeare in the park posters do give me that AI vibe. Perhaps AI has been trained in many such similar posters, but as a layman, I'd be hard pressed to be able to distinguish these from AI generated ones.
On a side note, I wanted to link that collection here, but unfortunately there's no hyperlink, it just opens in a popup. You'll have to scroll down to the bottom of their home page to find it. I hope for their sake they just overlooked this one thing, because if designers don't see the role of hyperlinks in user experience, I can't take them seriously.
[1] https://www.pentagram.com
Pentagram is an interesting company. We worked with them around fifteen or twenty years ago, so it’s likely a lot has changed, since then.
They had a structure, where each studio was run by a partner, and had its own specialty. Almost a separate company.
We worked with the San Francisco one, which specialized in digital design (looks like it’s no longer around, or transitioned to an independent company). We used them for graphic design. We used DDO (they are still around[0]), for interaction design (we worked with both, simultaneously). It was quite an experience, and taught me a great deal about integration of professional designers, into a technical project. I still use a lot of what I learned, to this day.
They had that “AI vibe,” back then, so I guess we know where the LLMs got some of their training materials.
Their Web sites have always been like that. I’m assuming that part of the reason, is to discourage scraping, and another, is to be fairly pretentious. There was quite a bit of showmanship, back then, and I have no reason to think that it’s any less, these days. They are certainly not alone. New York is filled with studios like that. I know a chap that designs top-end jewelry, and is almost a caricature. On any given day, his outfits cost more than my car. It seems to work. He makes a lot of money, so someone takes him seriously.
[0] https://www.dubberly.com/
If people were not lazy enough to "introduce variety" to begin with, AI wouldn't have the slop reputation we know it to be today.
But any UX designer/engineer will tell you defaults are important. And on social media we're seeing a ton of "default". Which explains the disparity in reactions. "Default code" isn't bad in most contexts. "Default art" is bland by definition; pre-AI it wasn't exactly kosher to use stock art by itself either. It's designed as a placeholder.
It sure seems like, while LLMs and diffusion models won't completely eradicate the middle class, the bar has now risen significantly to actually contribute in a lot of areas.
For programmers, sure SV startups and actual software-first shops are probably only augments with LLMs and not replacing. But what % of software engineers are employed in such shops? Well, from my graduating class in CS, approximately 30% of grads all went to the same contracting shop whose business model seems to be, take the bottom 30% of each CS class, underpay the fuck out of them, bootcamp them into something vaguely usable + teach the house style of CRUD/LOB app framework, then throw them at clients. And this seems to still be a step above "offshore to barely baseline capable (or worse) body shop for extremely dubious results."
That entire bottom 50% is probably about to be eviscerated. The "offshore + pray" approach is probably going to be completely zapped, much easier to just vibe code for probably better (or at least not worse) results. And the onshore-but-cheaper contracting shops are probably going to need a lot fewer people whose main contribution is translating low-ambiguity tickets into syntactically valid java spring code.
Similarly, for artists, disney is probably not going to use AI in a way that substantially speeds them up because they won't tolerate the quality loss at all. But how many artists work for disney? And how many make anime waifus for the gacha apps? The latter of which I can only assume has already switched substantially to AI assets.
I'm not sure about coders but for artists I don't think a massive number were making anime waifus, but instead were making graphic designs for advertisements, publications & websites.
Currently AI is actually replacing some of these jobs. But there's kinda a hitch there - when you target me with ads or show me your company's website and it has obvious AI art I tend to think that you're either selling me something very low quality or are a scammer. If you show me the novel you've written and it has an AI art cover I assume the contents are also AI generated garbage writing. So I wonder if those jobs will really be replaced? It all depends on society's acceptance of AI art and if AI art doesn't get any better. I thought it would get to the point that I couldn't tell it was AI by now, but so far it hasn't.
I think AI waifus and porn and memes and browser based zynga type games will be a place AI is going to be accepted because nobody cared too much about the authenticity and quality of those things before either. But an advertisement selling me a car? The cover of a book on philosophy? A website that I'm going to give my credit card number to? I'm not sure about those things.
> I'm not sure about coders but for artists I don't think a massive number were making anime waifus, but instead were making graphic designs for advertisements, publications & websites.
There was an old joke among designers that their biggest competitor was the boss' nephew playing with photoshop.
Now they need to compete with the boss' nephew playing with AI.
Cars feels like a bit of an odd one out because there's basically no low end. If you have the money to produce even a single car from a Camry to a hummer, you are probably going to not try to pinch pennies on marketing because a single car sale pays the salary of a designer for a year.
That's true. And car commercials that get people to buy fancy new cars are really well figured out and seem to seriously work. Why fix something that isn't broken?
Real estate is interesting because they seem to be really getting into using AI to stage individual houses. So I guess on the same vein maybe someone will try making an add with AI that shows some car driving down your local mainstreet or at some scenic location nearby your ip address that you might have positive associations with. Or maybe even your own home-street and parking in your driveway and you (or facebook you from 10 years ago when you had that hipster-moustashe because you haven't updated your photo) opens the door with a big smile on your face).
Seems crazy, but who knows.
We really should start being more precise when we say "replace". Are we talking about replacing 90-100% of that particular job? Or 50-80%?
Because it feels like people argue as if they were talking about the former, but if probed it turns out they admit it's the latter.
There will be still people making car advertisements, but they will be using ai tools and will get asked to produce X times faster. Effectively, some of them will get replaced, or rather have been replaced.
If 1 person of AI will be able to replace 5-10, we can expect a replacement of 80-90%.
But I don't see why it couldn't replace thousands, with design/content factories.
So it could be 99-99.9% (leaving all the money for the top 0.1%).
>But how many artists work for disney?
Given their empire these days: a lot. Mostly because outside of Disney there's really not much such thing as "modern salaried artist". You work for any of Disney's 50 subsidiaries, you work at a games studio (because Disney gave up its expansion early in that medium), or you're likley freelancing/commissioning and grabbing whatever gig comes along.
I'm exaggerating, but less than I care to adnit. Disney makes up that much of "normal" full time artistry these days. And it's no secret how little respect artists have had in the US, even before AI.
>And how many make anime waifus for the gacha apps? The latter of which I can only assume has already switched substantially to AI assets.
In America? Less than you think. Asia has plenty of cheaper and more talented artists to exploit. AI adoption is interesting there because it's already such a sweatshop that you need to consider if AI really saves that much time for its cost. Larger studios are dabbling, smaller ones use sparingly.
No, North/South American slop is fully focused on the hyper-casual market. It's fueling thousands of asset flips for quick mobile games or copying indie games into Roblox/Fortnite. That's where the effort (or lack thereof) is going.
> a human artist would do better.
Except we have all seen really awful human made posters long before AI. People are just upset just to be upset at this point.
Code was nosediving before AI badly.
> Code was nosediving before AI badly.
What? What are you comparing this pre-AI 2020s code to? 90s and 00s code for sure was worse.
2010s to 2020s code has been bad. We used to have 100% natively compiled apps, now everything is a Chrome browser wrapped JavaScript abomination, and before anyone assumes I hate JavaScript, I love doing front-end web development, and backend, and automation... and an unhealthy number of things (my GitHub is a mess). My point being, software quality has been downhill before AI, we just have nonsense rosy eyeglasses.
And before that we had PHP apps and VB apps, etc. Most code didn't have tests, most code wasn't version controlled. Functionality was much more limited, lots more stuff wasn't available on Linux.
Yes, we lost speed and resource usage but regular people don't care enough to pay for that or to punish offending apps in the marketplace.
>People are just upset just to be upset at this point.
Despite this being a technical community we seem to be really bad at understanding scale.
A bad artist is at worst like a fee pieces of trash littered in your lawn. Bad AI art is like a dump truck tipping over into your yard. And you see 10 more dump truck coming in at 90mph. It doesn't matter if it's a recyclables truck and all the bottles are individually cleaner and more Eco friendly than candy bar wrappers. The magnitude is still overwhelming.
You can ignore a few bad artists you don't like. You can't ignore swimming through slop day in and day out. Friction in a previously smooth environment angers people, and AI creates a lot of newfound friction.
There's a theory that when everyone can access some "good", then the rich and powerful will automatically differentiate themselves by switching to a different good that has a visible contrast to the common one. So for example, if the common people can afford only wool, the rich will wear cotton. Once the price of cotton drops, they'll switch to cashmere, which is... a kind of wool. It's not about the specific material or category of thing, it never was, it's just the contrast that matters.
So if everyone has "too busy" AI slop art, then the rich will switch to very plain art, even downright minimalist.
I'm betting that up-market stores will soon have hand-carved wood signs out the front just like in the 1800s to show off that a Real Human(tm) made their signage.
It's not that plain wood is better, it's just that it's not commonly available.
Very interesting idea. And I see some historical support for such actions and trends.
I think modern day life has had two major paradigm shifts that will make this potebtisl "real human(TM)" marketing not emerge among corporate, though. Definitely among smaller business (I'm already seeing it in my field), but not larger onesexcept that generally instead of realising we all have enough of we share, we raise the threshold of what we consider to be enough comfort and stuff.
1. Despite the legal insistence, corporations are not people, and they do not have "taste" to adjust to. Nor do the ways the leaders act and behave make it seem like they feel the company's actions and reputation reflects onto them. This is surprisingly a huge contrast from characters like Trump who traditionally place much importance on legacy and image and use that to shape their mannerisms and actions, aiming for a positive reaction (at least among his audience).
So there's no point in a new marketing scheme that will likely cost a lot more to not receive a lot more. Serving as cheaply as possible is too big a draw, and there's little human(TM) factors to divert from that. Which leads directly into the 2jd point
2. The modern hundred-millionaire/billionaire no longer "participates" in society. There's a decent video that gives an overview of this phenomenon, but I don't think it's a huge revelation to suggest that a billionaire who can be anywhere in the world within a day will truly feel like they are a part of their community the way, say, a Hollywood star would have personal ties to keep LA functional for them. And their social circles are so tiny that they are willing to travel a lot in order find such people.
In this lens, why would such people care about the taste and culture of the common citizen, Unless it's PR to get them more money? They don't go to the same stores (or go to stores at all themselves), they aren't participating nor hosting community events in town, they aren't (usually) performing the same kinds of recreation as their non–rich neighbors. They've already managed to completely divide themselves out from such people, so why care about standing out among them?
If the AI makes a “better” poster that everyone hates because it’s AI, and a person makes a “worse” poster that everyone likes because it’s human, isn’t the business better off with the “worse” poster?
I think the issue there is that, in the absence of the AI poster, people will still dislike the "worse" poster.
Since this is idealogical, a business owner's choices are: * use AI and some people hate it on principle, don't use AI and don't pay enough and some people hate it because it looks cheap, don't use Ai and pay a bunch more and people don't hate it...maybe, depending on style and skill of the artist.
As a business owner, it's not an encouraging situation.
Do people really care much about how beautiful a human made poster look like? I don’t think I’ve ever seen that as an issue, a poster doesn’t have to look fancy. Though if I love any art piece then learn later it was made by AI I will for sure update my judgement and dismiss it as if I was tricked in the first place. You’re way better using Word art for your poster than delegating to an AI if you don’t want to receive negative attention
An AI generated poster signals low effort. If you're too lazy or too cheap to make a real poster it makes me wonder what other corners have been cut.
Where do you draw the line?
Does a restaurant that doesn't grow its own vegetables "too lazy or too cheap?"
None of the AI haters (or haters in general) are willing to put money where their mouths are. None of them are willing to pay for better human artwork, yet have the audacity to criticize as if top artists owe them free output.
You think that no one who criticizes AI pays for human artwork?
That is a bizarre stance
Do you think the vast majority who criticize AI pays for good human artwork? Now that is a bizarre stance.
You think most people don’t pay for movies, music, games, clothing with designs, art, etc.?
Unless they've been in a coma all their life until 2022... Yes? You think only pirates are anti-AI or something? What are you getting at?
Motte and bailey; "none" -> "vast majority"
I know plenty of people (including myself) who pay for good human artwork :)
> yet have the audacity to criticize as if top artists owe them free output
Literally nobody is saying that, what are you talking about
Which critic is proposing funding better artwork, made by good human artists? Sometimes, silence says more than words. Non-decision is also a decision.
So you can't criticize something without coming up with some fantasy plan that will only exist in whatever corner of social media you left that comment, to make that criticism somehow now valid?
Why are you making such wide assumptions? I pay for art constantly. Where's this blatantly wrong suggestion coming from?
You could, of course, prompt the AI to produce a poster in the style of the "worse" human poster, and see where that gets you.
I suspect it would do quite a convincing job.
Though it's fairly unconvincing at handwriting.
No. There is a limit. Most non-trained people don’t know how to draw a straight line or layout type. If you go to a restaurant and see a poorly laid out menu you often think of the food more negatively. I think that the opposite is true too. If you go to a hole-in-the-wall restaurant and see a menu that looks like it was generated by a top New York design firm you will also think negatively because is it inauthentic.
It's not everyone though.
Honestly, the business would probably be best off if it showed whatever poster had the biggest and most exposed tits regardless of where it came from. Humans be humans and sex sells.
There aren't small problems in these posters though. They're huge, obvious, and an indicator that the one who made the flyer didn't care whatsoever.
When it includes an American Flag with more than 50 stars + the bottom row is cut off, you know they didn't even bother to proofread it.
This is the kind of garbage we're suffering with.
Those are, comparatively, small problems for the medium of a poster.
You have to understand that 99% of people who will see the poster will view it for <5 seconds. They wont sit there and count the stars.
And, of the people who do examine the poster closely, they’re looking at the text. They want to see the date, time, event details. The background is background.
But what is the point of the background then? I mean, it seems like we're admitting that the design doesn't matter, then why keep up the ruse? Let's drop design, and keep just plain textual information. There is no substance to it, it's just performative, a simulacrum of design.
I would think to catch people's eye so they look in the first place, sort of similar to an ad. Which is also why we see AI slop work well in ads. And before AI slop, we had corpo slop. Just bright colors and wacky animated characters who all fit that archetype where their limbs are too big. So I do think the design takes a back seat, at least for the common case. Of course there are exceptions, and those exceptions are exceptional, but for most purposes slop works fine.
You should try typing "American flag clipart" into Google and see non-AI images with the wrong number of stars.
Aren’t those ai generated too?
Why you making me check for you?
The first one I clicked on is at a stock photo site that says:
Every visual at iStock is crafted through human expertise, creativity, and ingenuity. We do not allow AI-generated visuals in our library.
Are you aware we don’t all get the same results from a google image search? Or do you seriously believe if I search the same keywords we will be looking at the exact same images?
That's not what I said. I said the first one I saw was not AI art via simple inspection. I wondered if you even looked.
Did you even look?
> They're huge, obvious, and an indicator that the one who made the flyer didn't care whatsoever.
Remember when this sort of ascending tricolon was supposed to be a dead giveaway for LLM-written prose?
Not every poster has that issue as you can see from the posting. It is a simple matter of caring enough to look at the output in more detail. These are issues that can be overcome.
Sure, but the basic value proposition of AI is that you don't have to care. These issues could be overcome, but they aren't, because the whole way the technology is promoted and sold guides the user away from caring.
Disagree. The value proposition of AI is that you can focus your caring on the things that matter, and let the machine do the dirty work.
One of the things that keeps circling in my mind when it comes to LLMs and similar transformer architectures is they are technically very impressive, and some of the things they can do are amazing, but there seems to be a compulsive need by the executives of corporations producing them to lie about their capabilities.
I suspect that what drives the compulsive lying and exaggeration is that they know what LLMs can actually do is not worth the development and operating costs (at least for now), so, like Bernie Madoff, they pretend that they're more capable than they are in the hopes that the next round of investment will somehow bridge the gap and let them actually produce what they've been falsely promising their investors they can do, and make the whole thing worthwhile.
This is the important part. Right now, AI is a tool. You can use it to generate high quality output, or you can use it to generate slop. If the output is slop, that is a reflection of the person using the tool, not AI.
I get AI slop from employees sometimes. If they provide poor quality work that hasn't been proofread, that is an employee problem, not an AI problem.
You know the saying where a million dollar company failing is "their" problem, but a billion dollar company failing is "our" problem?
We're going to quickly approach that problem in the conning years at this current rate, like the obesity epidemic. At some point you can't just dismiss things as personal responsibility when a significant portion of society suffers from it and need to instead look at the underlying systematic issues empowering bad incentives.
Of course, the US is awful at the latter. So I'm not holding my breath.
These are small problems. Details, even. You can be quite successful and get all that stuff wrong. Not that I'd recommend it.
https://www.theverge.com/gadgets/931347/trump-mobile-t1-phon...
People really will take any possible excuse to derail a thread and talk about political figures they don't like, huh?
Step 1: develop a cult of personality, to the point of becoming president 2 (even after openly failing to coup a lost election)
Step 2-3: sell anything to your cult followers, doesn’t matter how good or bad it is
Step 4: profit
Simple recipe for success
True. But an organizer who doesn't care, will also not be willing to pay for good artwork. AI haters should put money where their mouths are and fund human top artwork.
Posters for small events, a well known space where you will find „top artwork“… you really just need to spend 1h in Inkscape to get something decent
You're really overestimating how many people can draw something "decent" in Inkscape. Most likely they will take a template. That's not necessarily better than AI either.
A template is perfectly fine to use
I don't claim to be an artist and a template is still done with the caring eye of a professional. It's way better than an AI generated poster. Or at the very least, there's many less instances where I've seen overly used templates than I have badly designed AI generated designs.
Absolutely. I've had the identical experience hiring artists for game art/UI. Every once in a while you find an artist who is stellar but most everyone else is not that good.
The TFA is pointing to a prompting skills/creativity issue, but I get equally frustrated with hired artists as with genAI image models. Even with skilled human artists (remote/offshore), I find they're best at copying a particular style so I end up having to google for images of the look that we're targeting, then spend hours painstakingly describing the changes needed. Then iterating many times, and with artists in remote time zones that means each iteration takes a whole day. The process is ironically very similar to using AI image models but can take much longer due to time zones.
Well that's why and how we got the current model. Lots of noise, so tools were made to curate and figure out the most consistent artists But it goes both wwys; artists that stand out get ebough of a reputation to boost their prices. Unless you get very lucky with budding taletnt, you generally get what you pay for.It's not much different from how you'd run your gaming team.
True, but whats even dumber is that 99% of the use cases people are getting angry at would never be given to a real designer anyway (too low value).
The funniest genre of AI backlash imo is normies yelling at small businesses for using AI on social posts.
There's no world where your local flowershop has both the time and money to brief a design agency to create a flyer for Fridays social post.
Yet, in the mind of the mob, they imagine some designer is losing a job due to the existence of AI...not realizing that every social post they've previously been looking at from the same flower shop was just a 1-click Canva template.
The only person losing a job due to AI design is Canva, which itself was hated for taking jobs away from Photoshop designers, whom in the 90s ended up taking jobs away from the phototypesetting industry, who took the jobs away from the manual typesetters, etc etc etc. Meanwhile the economy and living standards grew each time.
Not to mention that I can also tell when a poster has been generated using Photoshop and not real artist tools, like brushes and pens. I've seen a lot of these Photoshop-generated posters, and they are in no way comparable to something DaVinci or Picasso would create.
> not real artist tools
Nice no true Scotsman fallacy. PS is a "real" artist tool.
Wouldn't say that, there is a huge shift in art style between what we got before Photoshop and what we got after. Just look at book covers in the 1970/80s and book covers in the 1990/2000s. The old stuff was full of custom illustrations, while the new stuff is often just copy&paste of generic stock images or some rather hideous early 3D renderings. Even the bad covers of the 80s (see /r/badscificovers/) still have some personality to them that is lacking in a lot of more modern ones.
It's not that you can't create good art with any tool, it's just that the economy and expectations change with the tools available, and the tools being faster/cheaper doesn't translate into better art.
I believe that comment is satire. Look at the last six words.
I agree.
To be precise, the tool and the artist are two different things. You can make crap with brushes or PS, and you can make art too.
AI is a tool too. What I build with it is orders of magnitude less important/interesting compared to what a talented artist can build with it.
This bullshit disingenuous false equivalency again.
In both photoshop and painting, the human using the tool decides what strokes to use. That isn't true with AI art. It's not "just another tool" for doing the activity when it does the entire activity for you.
> In both photoshop and painting, the human using the tool decides what strokes to use.
except for the million posters and album covers unironically made with a real photo passed into one of photoshop's "Artistic" filters to make it look like some impressionist painting
It is exactly “another tool”. Just like Abelton with an automated drum machine is another tool for creating music. As the posting shows the tool isn’t doing the entire activity for you. The author is reprompting the tool to generate a result more inline with their vision.
It's not "creative" in the sense of incorporating a drum track or photograph into a composition you're developing, it's "creative" in the sense of asking for a vague style and getting it, which is pretty much exactly the tool doing the entire activity. The author explains in detail that it's not their vision, its just a list of styles returned when asked for a list of styles, and they don't actually know what the Memphis Group even is...
Would you consider me to have "created" Billie Jean if I type "eighties music" into a music search engine and select "Michael Jackson" from the list. Or to have "designed a logo" if I pay a human to design some logos for me and pick one.
You can do that exact thing with Ableton if you want. If you want to put in low effort you can do that. You can find beats labeled “1980’s pop” and use presets from other people. You can put in high effort using AI tools and fine tune every aspect of the result if you want. It’s just another tool. You are conflating effort with the tool.
HEH. It seems like you don't remember the early days of Photoshop.
The analogy holds perfectly well. We can "no true Scotsman" this all day long.
Any "real" artist could dunk on PS: "Oh, you didn't have to go out and buy a canvas and paint and brushes. Hell, you probably don't even know how to properly mix paint on a palette! Not only do you not to clean your brushes, you don't even have brushes!"
And the right response is: "Who gives a shit?" The answer is "Some folks, but their opinion decreasingly matters." And the same exact logic applies to AI. You might as well be complaining that Google doesn't pay cartographers to hand draw Google Maps.
> when it does the entire activity for you.
This is total fiction, and has spawned an entire cult of "just give me the prompt" folks that think using AI requires no skill, and anyone using AI is just a "meat proxy". But that's not true, at all, as evidenced by years of commentary on this site with people getting radically different outcomes using AI. We've gone from "stochastic parrots" to "gonna destroy humanity" in 2 years.
AI will do jobs that we used to go to Fiverr for -- it'll eat the bottom of the market, just like automation does elsewhere. The bottom of the market is blog art, clip art, menus, commercial signage, event posters, and the like. That's completely natural, and hating it is shouting into the wind. The local cafe owner was never particularly incentived to have their menus crafted by some local artist.
If the hole in the wall teriyaki restaurant’s menu wasn’t hand painted by Monet I turn right around and walk out. I want nothing to do with an eating establishment that can’t at least spring for a realistic rendition of chicken yakisoba hand painted by Michelangelo himself.
Photoshop basically destroyed a centuries-old artistic tradition of depicting six gyoza on a white plate. Now with all this AI nonsense, you might as well just make your food at home rather than stare at yet another “six finger hipster eating a vegetable spring roll” cranked out by ChatGPT.
You forgot the /s.
Sadly, if it hadn’t gone on to DaVinci, I wouldn’t be sure.
If you can convince Chat GPT to stop putting icons next to every single thing, it would be loads better. 1940s cubist style seems sort of there, then bam a tiny cake icon next to the word cakes and drinks. Why? Each of these posters, including the original would be so much better without these tiny stupid icons. No one at the Bauhaus ever made a poster with tiny icons! Chat GPT just cannot drop the icons. Like just have it read a graphic design history book. These secondary attempts might pass more people's AI aversion filter but they would all receive an F in a graphic design class.
Students in a graphic design class are expected to create something that graphic designers like; but that's not the same as what other people like.
The blog also mentions, several times, that it wasn't the goal to be indistinguishable.
I think it's actually a feature when people can recognize it as AI.
Why would someone want it to be unrecognizable as AI? What is the reason people want to hide AI usage ? (other than when "cheating" in studies or examns or such, obv)
AI generated visuals are becoming a signal of A) low-effort, B) and/or unwillingness or inability to spend resources to genuinely present your product or brand.
Both of these communicate that I will probably not get a good value for my money when buying your product or service.
> Both of these communicate that I will probably not get a good value for my money when buying your product or service.
This is where I stop following. Businesses should focus on where they differentiate, and I really don't care how they generate signage if I can read it. I don't get anything by them paying Banksy to make their menu instead of having Gemini generate it. And if there is any connection to getting good value, it's the inverse: I'm more likely to get good value when I'm not paying for fancy advertising. See: every drugstore that puts generics alongside brand names for cheaper.
Yes, generics are better value, but at least from the big drugstores and pharmacies they still have clean design - they just make it clear what their active ingredient is in what dosage, mention the branded equivalent, and then put the standard drug label on it, and that's about it.
The worst generative AI posters and restaurant menus I'm seeing from newer small businesses do not instill the same feeling that I'm getting generic-like value. To keep with the drug analogy, they feel like the combo pills you find somewhere in the back of a gas station which combine 10+ random supplements to help with 20+ different symptoms. Especially for new restaurants where real reviews are limited, menus with terrible AI generated food drawings really give me the same ick - that they might not be providing any good value at all.
However, i do admit that part of this is also that i live in an area where there is tons of competition for most cuisines I'm interested in, so I can use menu quality as a differientiating factor in the first place. If enough places around me were using sloppy AI menus i would probably ignore it.
You're free to ignore signals of cheapness if you want, as well as not care about quality. If you want generic restuarant food I guess you can go to McDonalds instead of a burger place; it's all the same value to you I guess.
You're using rhetoric to try and change the subject -- you're making a jump from "good value" to "lack of quality", and painting them with the same brush.
I'm saying I don't particularly value businesses that focus on things that are low impact for me. I'd rather my barista focus on sourcing good beans and making good coffee than paying someone to do a fancy custom menu for them. We see this all the time when we visit new areas. It's considered naive to follow whatever looks most glitzy -- every seasoned traveler will tell stories about all the tourist traps, and how the real quality is the hole-in-the-wall place all the locals gather.
What I'm saying is we shouldn't conflate quality with marketing and advertising, which is what posters are. You seem dead set on doing so anyway, and I'm not sure why.
There’s some level of irony around the fact that McDonalds spends quite a lot on branding and design.
You are conflating the use of AI with effort. It does not need to imply low effort or low care. I’m hoping this tired narrative dies out soon.
"AI = low effort" is becoming a heuristic regardless of the assertion's absolute accuracy. It's probably not going to die soon as long as it keeps appearing in scammy or low-margin business places.
AI-generated visuals aren't the first to go through this. I'd say the early-to-mid 90's "desktop publishing" went through this too - as soon as everyone could make ads and flyers cheaply with Word, everyone did.
> "AI = low effort" is becoming a heuristic regardless of the assertion's absolute accuracy.
If you can tell that it's AI, that's probably because it is low effort. Higher-effort attempts pass more easily.
(Of course, that also requires an understanding that there are ways to apply effort to making a short request; and believing that it would make a difference; and noticing for yourself that the first output is bad; and trying. Quite a lot of people seem to lack at least one of these.)
>I’m hoping this tired narrative dies out soon.
It won't die off until AI stops being used with low effort. Which it is the majority the time used for.
The AI art is also a class/status marker.
If a business markets itself with these AIgen posters, you get wildly different responses from different groups.
boomers that spend all their time on Facebook will think “this is such a nice pretty poster” and be oblivious to the fact it is even ai. Even if they knew it was ai they don’t care.
Young people will think it is low class/trashy. Some hate it because it’s ai, others hate it because the poster is ugly/busy/confusing.
Because there is a big anti-AI movement and some people will think you're destroying the planet and putting people out of a job if you make one prompt to a chatbot.
Maybe if there were fewer people foaming at the mouth to enrich themselves while destroying the planet, and putting people out of work, there would be less pushback.
So it isn't really about art?
It's also about art. AI is a multi-faceted problem.
If we're being frank: we've been in a low trust society for a good while now. Grifting is rampant and blatant, all the way up to the federal government.
Among many other things, it's about "am I getting scammed". So my mind needs to develop called ID in some sense. Not a perfect indicator, but enough to protect me. That can open me up to criticism as being overly cynical. And my response is: yes, that's what a low trust society does to people. That's the point.
While this is a side comment on a somewhat frivolous topic, it did make me reframe a lot of my justice, transparency and reason (as in being reasonable) complacency I am seeing around me.
Yes, the fact that we are in a low trust society makes us behave we do. Can we change this? Should we even try?
I've seen societies band together in the face of (acute) natural disasters (floods, wildfires...) or big disasters like wars, but how do we get to — if not high trust — not-low trust society when all is good and is it even worth pursuing?
> Can we change this? Should we even try?... and is it even worth pursuing?
It's perfectly possible. Another aspect of humanity pointed out to me from others is that we are surprisingly sensitive not to the current "quality of life", but to the rate of change in that QoL. So we don't necessarily need to fix all of humanities woes to restore trust, we need to get on a trajectory where people believe a better future is coming. That optimism and morale makes all the difference in building momentum towards restoring trust.
But whether we should ultimately comes down to your own personal paradigm. Do you feel you succeed when you reach your goals and lifestyle you desire, or do you get more satisfaction helping others succeed and survive where you can? Would you rather feel more secure wandering around your neighborhood, or are you fine paying for extra protection (directly or indirectly) to get by your day-to-day? Do you prefer a variety of public places to take your family to or would you rather have a nicer dwellings to invite friends over to? There's no correct answer to such questions, but they affect the trust of your community.
>how do we get to — if not high trust — not-low trust society when all is good
Not to sound snide, but: you increase trust by doing actions that make people more trustful. There's no magic to building trust, but it's also not complicated. You simply perform genuine, intentional actions made primarily to help others. I won't say altruistic, but the more altruistic the better the effect.
To break it down a bit more, I'd say there's 3 main layers of trust to build: local, institutional, and societal. Unless you have outsized influence already and a passion to lead the charge, you generally need the lower layer's trust improved before it expands to the next layer.
1. in your local community, with people you interact with in your day-to-day. Simply being more available to meeting up with people and doing small actions to assist helps to build up trust. As well as in what kinds of activities and groups you join to meet such people. It's the layer you most likely have the most power over
2. in the institutional level, to influence structures you directly interact with. The school your kids goes to, the emergency services, the platforms you consume media on, the businesses you go to regularly, your local town initiatives. Having trust that these systems (at the bare minimum) aren't actively trying to make you or your family worse off builds trust that the structures around your immediate community will improve and benefit everyone. Many of these are influenced by local policy, either through coalitions to get such proposals to leadership or getting leaders in who care about such factors. They can't do something like giving people a 4-day workweek, but it can make a park cleaner or create more/better public transportation.
3. Then on the societal level, to influence wider culture well beyond your sphere. This is all the larger level thinking concerning economy, technology, environment, this topic here on the trustworthiness of AI generated posters, etc. that the internet often talks about (which make sense, as a medium well beyond your sphere), so I won't need to expand on this much. This is pretty much exclusively larger policy issues to enact in laws, so influencing wider state/federal law requires larger populism movements.
It's all of the above. The unreliable empty garbage they barf out, threats to destroy jobs for oligarch asshat profit, and the resource hungry pillaging of neighborhoods. Oh, yeah, and also the crappy mush up of stolen art.
Hyperbole much? When I see this type of low-effort, low-care response I ignore it. Perhaps take more time to express your thoughts.
> Perhaps take more time to express your thoughts.
bit of a problematic argument in this context given that the entire usage of generative AI rests on people's unwillingness to do just that
Seems these things about genAI are fairly well established at this point. Hence the vast majority disapproval of genAI being forced on users and broad rejection of AI data centers. Did you have a substantive response for any of the three major negatives, or just your own low-effort, low-care dismissal?
I believe rejection of AI Data Centres is nothing but "local" protectiveness (a bit like NIMBY); like lithium mining, nuclear plants, and any other "dirty", destructive activity.
I want the products of it (how many phones with lithium batteries in those protests), but not the side effects.
Which is not to say these are wrong perspectives to hold, but it's important to understand where the root of the complaint is before you try to come up with generic solutions.
Your comment gives strong "temporarily embarrassed oligarch asshat" vibes. Is that intentional?
> Why would someone want it to be unrecognizable as AI?
If we operate under the assumption that the AI generated posters are bad (which this HN thread is), then making them not look like AI generated posters would be directionally toward making them not bad. That doesn't necessarily mean it's good though, it could be average and fulfill that constraint.
> Why would someone want it to be unrecognizable as AI?
Because the reason for any given AI work being "recognizable as AI" is considered inherently a quality issue. For the suspicion to arise, there has to be something that someone considers "wrong" about the work, in order to point at that thing and say "this must be the work of an enemy 「ＭＯＤＥＬ」".
> Why would someone want it to be unrecognizable as AI? What is the reason people want to hide it
Because a lot of “everyday” folks really strongly dislike AI. I’ve lost count of the number of AI generated Instagram ads I’ve seen where the comments are filled with “AI slop!”.
It’s not a positive signal for anyone who wants to persuade someone of the value of whatever they’re advertising because it’s associated with being cheap and lazy.
I think "a lot" is very subjective. I can also say "a lot of people really like AI-generated arts" and that would be true as well. HN is a place where a lot of normally objective, informed, and probably very nice folks in the real life come to engage in endless of debates that go nowhere.
> Half of U.S. adults say the increased use of AI in daily life makes them feel more concerned than excited, according to a June 2025 survey. Just 10% say they are more excited than concerned. Another 38% say they are equally concerned and excited.
> About half of Americans said in the June survey that AI will worsen people’s ability to think creatively and form meaningful relationships with others. Far fewer said AI will make these things better.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/12/key-findi...
“about half” surely objectively qualifies as “a lot”.
> I can also say "a lot of people really like AI-generated arts" and that would be true as well.
Yes but without the corresponding negative. If someone who likes AI generated art sees some human created art they don’t think “gross, why didn’t they use AI to do that?”. So for something like advertising using AI will alienate some potential customers. Not using AI will alienate no one.
People aren’t feeling the benefits of AI. Where there are any benefits, they aren’t causing prices to decrease or supply to go up, instead the excess value is being absorbed by profit taking.
If most people aren’t shareholders but instead workers whose jobs are threatened by AI, we should expect this response.
It has nothing to do with artists, it has everything to do with trying to mount a collective response to the apparent threat, poorly expressed as crowds tend to do.
I bet those poll respondents are worried about their jobs, not seeing some random AI art on a bus.
Why not both? I didn’t lose my job in 2008 but watching people all around me lose theirs made it clear that my own economic situation was not a safe one.
Maybe they see the random AI art on the bus and they realize that meant a real human artist probably didn't get paid to make it so society is worse off. Maybe those poll respondents have empathy, in that they are worried about their jobs and feel bad for other people who have lost work to AI too
they realize that meant a real human artist probably didn't get paid to make it so society is worse off
This is a form of the broken window fallacy. Society is not worse off when production requires less labor, any more than it's worse off when someone uses an open source library rather than paying someone to reimplement it.
> This is a form of the broken window fallacy.
I’m not sure I see it, can you elaborate?
The broken window fallacy is the idea that it's good when your window gets broken because you have to pay someone to fix it and it increases their income. If that were true, then it would be bad if you could easily repair windows without spending time or money. It's false because we're better off if we can spend our resources on things we actually want rather than constantly maintaining our windows, even if that means some window repairmen need to find other jobs.
What do we do when former window repairman can't find other jobs? Just fuck em, right?
The narrative we're seeing around AI and current automation isn't "we're going to automate one category of jobs". If it were then sure, we could be relatively confident that the excess labor from that industry would be absorbed by other segments
But that's not what the future looks like to me. The future to me looks like "we want to automate a large majority of labor"
So what then? If tons of labour is displaced then the Broken Window Fallacy doesn't really apply, because it is based on the assumption that there will always be something for displaced labour to do.
Call it the Excess Labor Corollary. If there's no way to absorb excess labor in other segments, then what.
When there really aren't any jobs for the former window repair man to do, we are in a "post scarcity economy", which could be a utopia where everyone lives in comfort and has more leisure time.
Or of course, a few billionaires could hoard the wealth.
There's a Wikipedia page about it.
We could be in a post scarcity economy now, except that generally instead of realising we all have enough of we share, we raise the threshold of what we consider to be enough comfort and stuff.
>could be a utopia where everyone lives in comfort and has more leisure time.
It definitely could be. With current trajectory as of now, do you think it will be?
>except that generally instead of realising we all have enough of we share, we raise the threshold of what we consider to be enough comfort and stuff.
I see the opposite sentiment. I see previous basic necessities further out or reach then they were last generation. People aren't raising their standards, they are sinking towards poverty.
But then their worries are dismissed because they can get a flatscreen TV for 200 dollars. A TV that is likely feeding your data back to corporate to make thousands off you.
You're going back one generation, and I'm thinking further back.
Like, if we all settled for a 1950s British living standard, using current manufacturing technology, we could achieve that while everyone works a little bit less.
But, we'd prefer to keep labouring and have nicer things.
The supposed goal of "Make America Great again" is to invoke that 50s era of American exceptionalism. So surely there's something there people miss.
And your theoretical implies we have choice in the matter. I'm sure many would in fact take a smaller home with less amenities over a modern home with cheap appliances. Not that I'd actually be given that choice given my family lineage, but the general living standard of the 50's was quite high. I doubt the act of AC and the lack of knowledge of abestos are the things that made housing skyrocket over the decades.
Sure, but if we run AI all the way to its endpoint, it’s not just about window repairmen anymore. Our current notions about economics assume there’s always another job class for people to move to, here eventually there won’t be.
So here you never have to pay anyone to fix your windows, because they fix themselves, but conversely nobody will give you money to fix their windows! And then you have to pay your self-fixing windows a rent in tokens without an income.
> here eventually there won’t be.
That's a pretty big leap.
I don’t think so, even if the whole “AI exponential” idea is wrong, that’s just the shape of the curve. There still is a curve. Even if these things take 50 years to happen instead of 5 (which would be better and which I doubt will be the case) it still happens eventually. I think the current capabilities of AI are enough of a heuristic for us to assume this is going to happen.
It is a stated goal of several prominent AI business leaders. Altman, Amodei, and Musk at the very least have had mask-off moments where they said as much.
> Society is not worse off when production requires less labor
Society is definitely worse off when people who exchange their labor for capital have no opportunities to do so
>Society is not worse off when production requires less labor,
Not objectively in every situation. But that does seem to be the case and objective here.
[flagged]
They really don’t. A tiny minority of cranks dislike vaccines. AI dislike is far, far more widespread.
Not to mention, there’s a reason why AI is seen as cheap and lazy… because it is! There’s no good parallel to vaccines here.
AI thumbnails outperform human thumbnails on YouTube by a lot, I've seen click-through rate spreads of 4%+ (~5% -> ~9% in AB tests). Yet people will do drive by comments trying to excoriate creators for using AI thumbnails. It's really quite ridiculous.
"Since I've added gambling and pornography to my old niche hobby website, my profits are up 4% - how can anyone criticize me?"
Not a perfect analogy, but adding some bait that does indeed work for grabbing attention can of course be criticized.
And of course those criticisms can and should be dismissed if the creators goals are purely to maximize engagement
No that _is_ the criticism
You can dismiss criticisms of theft if you look at the goals of the thiefs
The goal of purely maximizing engagement should itself be dismissed.
Lying, grifting, and promoting conspiracies online also maximizes engagement and drives revenue. I guess we should go ahead and do that too.
This whole conversation makes me want to throw up
This does make me wonder if I'm being disillusioned or if the community has genuinely shifted in the past 2–3 years or so. Or of this merely a greater societal shift as "history culture" takes off. You'd think sentiments like "clickbait is bad" would be a common sentiment here, but now I'm not so sure anymore.
I feel very similarly. I would’ve assumed we all obviously don’t want all this chaff in our lives
A lot of any real gain will be due to novelty, and that will wane once you've been doing it a short time (or once other people in your field are doing it so you all go back to looking the same).
I suspect a lot of the gain isn't even that useful to the channel: it being people clicking to complain. You might not see that mean actual complaints because many will see the existing ones and either just upvote them or move on without doing anything (their chance to repeat their regular comment to get a few upvotes having been taken by someone already having said it).
So you’re saying it boosts engagement, advancing the creators primary goal of putting something on YouTube to begin with?
I'm saying that it at best drives a temporary increase in engagement, then you look even more like everyone else than you did before because everyone is doing the same thing with the same AIs. And while that engagement counts in the immediate stats, it might result in a drop overall as some mark you as a channel they don't want to visit again. Then again, I don't think many youtubers are relying on discerning viewers so maybe they will get a boost in the hollow attention the crave.
> the hollow attention they crave
It’s their job, their source of income (or they’re aspiring to it). Making bait thumbnails is a necessary evil. If they don’t they’re leaving money on the table for no reason.
If they AB test some thumbnails and the AI ones get more views/engagement then of course they are going to do that.
I think the overall premise of “if AI thumbnails are even getting more engagement, it must be from haters” is faulty to begin with. It just fits your personal narrative. We simply don’t know.
Peers Morgan's source of income, and hence his job, is being rage bait in (vaguely) human form. A pound shop Alex Jones. It's being his job doesn't mean I have to respect it, or him. See also: loan sharks, living statues, influencers generally.
Who said anything about you personally respecting anyone?
>> the hollow attention they crave
> It’s their job, their source of income
You seemed to be reacting to my low opinion of the practices of attention dredgers, as if I'm bad for holding that opinion and a should respect all career choices and income generation attempts. Perhaps I read that quite wrong.
> as if I’m bad
I didn’t say anything like that, you pulled that feeling out of yourself.
I’m just pointing out that they are doing it for money. Most white collar workers are using AI as part of their job these days.
Shitty engagement that's not good long term human flourishing.
Shitty engagement will just get them recommended to more people because of The Algorithm though.
Yes, and this is a bad thing. It's bad that it gets rewarded and it's bad that creators whose main content is good feel compelled to do it. And I would watch all of this stuff just the same, based on the topic matter and the channel's reputation, without them doing these things, as long as YouTube had put a trial of that content in front of me in the first place. And I get no way to actually give that feedback on YouTube.
There are plenty of channels I'll watch semi-regularly that have god-awful thumbnails. But the same is true of almost everything that I immediately click "don't recommend channel" on.
Do those rates hold across multiple videos over a period of time? I've seen at least one case where someone did an A/B test of an AI thumbnail and the reason his engagement went up because everyone hated it and was commenting to say as much.
> Yet people will do drive by comments trying to excoriate creators for using AI thumbnails. It's really quite ridiculous.
That's just a loud minority. Most people really don't care about using AI in what you do as long as it is entertaining. The real world ain't Reddit.
Maximizing click-through rates leads to garbage clickbait and often misleading thumbnails, it is not a good metric. Those kinds of thumbnail, and channels built on low effort but high engagement content, were widely derided before AI came along.
Novelty is a significant driving factor here. Gen Thumbnails are eye catching because they are new and viewers haven’t adapted to skimming over them like they do with everything else.
Thumbnails, same as everything that is supposed to attract attention, have styles that change over time due to saturation and fatigue.
It’s the current iteration of the red arrow with a (staged) surprised face and as you’re saying we will all learn to just skip it as well. These things are always an arms race, and given LLM’s can only generate facsimiles of things I don’t see how it can stay ahead of it
Maybe.
I don't think clickrate on Youtube is a meaningful metric if all you want is for the right people to show up at your event.
There are channels I watch regularly because they cover topics I want to see covered and I've seen their previous videos and they met my expectations. Then they'll use AI thumbnails while focused on finding the right topics and thinking about how to present them. Some of them are clearly letting an AI write the main part of a script and reading it off (while still being clearly a human doing this and not some weird TTS monstrosity). It annoys me to think that I'm incentivizing people to do this, or letting The Algorithm get the wrong idea about the quality of these shitty thumbnails that don't matter now that the creator is in my feed and I can read the video titles.
(I also end up watching a fair bit of stuff where the thumbnail is literally just a random frame from the video, which lets me know the subject, and the title is some clickbait nonsense that I don't care about. There are a lot of ways for this stuff to work.)
I watch a lot og gaming videos on youtube, often of new indie games to see if I want to play them. Some creators will use AI-generated thumbnails that look nothing like the actual game, and before I recognize them and ignore that creator, they'll get clickthroughs. And then I'll see that I was bamboozled and exit the video.
I don't care if someone uses AI to "style" their thumbnails, but if you use it to completely misrepresent what the video is about I'll leave in protest. That has nothing to do with AI, and everything to do with the fact that it's clickbait. I don't like human-generated clickbait either.
What's ridiculous about that?
[dead]
The alternatives are not horrible, but look like I’m being lured to a Spring Fair by an alien. It makes no sense to associate with Japanese imagery or 90s computer graphics for an event that has nothing to with these topics. Design is a language and these speak gibberish.
The Spring Fair is a lorem ipsum, here.
They asked the AI for a list of different styles.
The author then picked them out, not the AI. For curiosity I assume.
I love the idea of using unexpected styles. I think it can be very creative. I appreciate it if someone does that deliberately as a humor.
You’re comparing the sub-minimum-wage offshore template jockeys to average designers, not “high end” designers. A high-end designer making a one-off poster for a local fair is about as likely as a senior engineer at a FAANG company making a website for it.
It would be like someone paying for a simple website for their small business saying off-shore fiverrrr Wordpress hacks are average coders, and anyone making anything close to a reasonable dev salary in this job market was a high-falutin’ luxury option.
An average graphic designer would ask what unique, non-informational things about the event the poster should portray, do a little bit of research and exploration, and then figure out how to communicate that in pure visual terms. It draws people into the vibe of your event, and hints at the visual impact of experiencing it. You get the nice type work, information hierarchy, attractive layout and color scheme, etc. for free because those are the tools average graphic designers use to visually communicate. This is not expensive compared to the expertise required. With both AI and the Fiverrrr designers, at best, you only get nice type work, information hierarchy, attractive layout and color scheme, etc. You’re not paying for design — you’re paying a graphics software technician for a graphic, like you would at a sign shop.
An average designer is who you’d want to make your posters and maybe a few other types of advertisements, such as postcards, or bus shelters or billboards or banner ads. Someone in a country with a minimum wage of less than a dollar is who you get on fiverrrr. A high-end graphic designer is who you’d contract to do a complete branding and identity overhaul.
Anecdotally, I was reading https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-build-long-awa... from another HN post and I could have sworn the image was AI generated but https://www.pangram.com/ said was legit human created. Sad that my new default is assuming everything is AI created or vibed nowadays.
This is my experience as well. I run a bootstrapped business, so we don't have a ton of backing. We can't afford the top design firms, and Fable can do better than those within our budget. So it's not that we prefer AI over human designers; we just don't have the money!
This technology is super new and I've only seen AI posters really proliferate in the past few months and suddenly... people don't know how to live without it?
They're not saying they can't live without it, they're saying it's helpful. If you've been walking to the well for years to get buckets of water, and suddenly have running water in your kitchen, going back to trudging buckets doesn't sound very appealing.
Well, no. Before genAI, I used fiverr, and I was also shamed for hiring those humans.
> we just don't have the money!
You don't have ANY money? Plenty of students would do a great job for a little money and a professional reference. Now you just helped the workforce, helped the local economy and cost you little.
Have you ever tried doing that? In my experience, art students don't like to work for "little money" and "professional reference" and stablished artists don't like when you try to pay "little money" to students.
Just a note about language: when folks say they "don't have the money" or "don't have the time", it's almost never the case that they don't have any of the resource in question...it's about priorities. What they are saying is that there are far more effective ways to spend their money than incidentals like this, especially when cheap alternatives exist.
In year 2026 you are likely going to pay for a meat proxy who would still use the same model just without you controlling the prompt.
What is your experience with design done by students? Because mine isn't great. It's not bad either, but it's just... mediocre.
These days a cheap designer is just going to be a meat proxy for AI anyway.
AI, at least for now while it's still free/very cheap, enables producing a lot of very low-value content that in the past you never could have justified spending money and human labor on. The cost or time needed to make a poster or a flyer acted as a value-based gatekeeper. Today, it costs nothing to make an AI slop image and blast it out on social media, so we're drowning in it.
Depends on which economy the buyer and the seller respectively come from.
the problem is that AI does better than those students, especially if you don't know what good design looks like... which is most people
but of course this means the entire market will dry up because no one pays students anymore
Creativity does not have to be expensive to be good. Yall just dont want to bother dealing with it.
I was the person who "had to bother dealing with it" many years ago before we had AI, Canva, or even Adobe cloud.
I volunteered and designed a good amount of posters for student organizations.
Don't enjoy it but did it to help my peers and friends out.
I find it ironic that back then we had a lot of trouble finding people who were willing to design posters and promo media on print.
Now the comment section on this post has people mourning AI taking over poster making in 2026. Where was the help back then?
From the perspective of someone who had to burn the midnight oil to do it for years, trust me, I would rather not do it and spend that time with my family and friends. And judging from how hard it was to find others who were willing to do it, I think its a reasonable argument that most people were not actually willing to do the work either.
So mourn away but I wouldn't cry if I "missed out" on making posters. If we had AI back then, I would not take on any of those poster making requests.
One of my best memories from an art class in high school was that a student organization came into our class and asked if any of us would be willing to design a poster. I ended up designing and silk-screening their poster for them and it was a fantastic experience.
I can totally see how doing more than a couple would start to feel like work, but having one or two experiences like that was awesome.
oh my. from my perspective, this is the most useful comment on this post.
we should have asked the arts students! (and find a way to return the favor) i did not think about that.
that being said there were some intense rivalry between various studies, my presence may not be have been well received.
and judging how i am here, you can guess what i studied :-)
thank you for this. really feel like i got a missing piece of a puzzle reading this.
Back when? The 1970s? I don't believe that you couldn't find poster making services in the last 10-20 years.
You missed the “I volunteered” part. They were working for free.
"I find it ironic that back then we had a lot of trouble finding people who were willing to design posters and promo media on print."
I don't see the word free here. Of course you'd have trouble finding people to do anything for free.
They said: "I volunteered and designed a good amount of posters for student organizations." What do you think how many student organization have the excess money to hire a professional designer for a one-off poster? Of course they needed someone to do it for free, or else it wouldn't have been done at all!
That doesn't even make sense. If you volunteered, then you did find someone. Yourself.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Try reading their comment in its entirety, and not just as individual fragments taken out of context: They most likely didn't have the budget to hire a professional designer and no one else would do it for free, so they had to do it themselves. They didn't enjoy it, and they would've gladly passed that work to an AI, had one existed back then.
It's not that hard to understand. Here, I've linked it for your convenience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49765890
For every human good art that is cheap I can show you ten that are not. The problem is you don't know which version you'd get. Someone charges less because they are unknown. Fixing AI art is much less hassle than human one.
This is like anything. If you want good and inexpensive it's going to be a pain in your arse one way or another.
Exactly. Sad to see another industry getting decimated by AI just to save a bit of cash.
A bit ? A lot.
Because people assume u need to actually hire someone to make art. Just let your kid draw something for your small restaurant. It's more pleasant to look at for people who didn't yet sell their soul to AI.
> Just let your kid draw something for your small restaurant.
Wait, we've gone from "pay the local artists" because AI shows you're "lazy and cheap" and "don't care about your brand".
And now whatever my 7-year-old draws is good enough.
My only conclusion reading these threads is that folks come in with their mind made up, and will argue absolutely anything so long as it amounts to "AI bad".
the point of advertising is to communicate something. If your kid draws your menu, you signal family values. If you pay a local artist, you signal investment in the community.
If ChatGPT churns out your ad you've signaled nothing. And that's obviously why you can criticize AI for every imaginable reason. That's indeed the difference and why people, regardless of how 'good' your AI art will be, will attempt to hide it, because it defeats the purpose of advertising as such.
Then you get Chick o' Fish.
It is not, in fact, more pleasant to look at.
These people just doesn't have a good taste, imo.
Damn, how did businesses survive decades without being able to pay some intern or someone in the office to quickly put up a poster? Like come on, claiming 'budget' is the issue here when I can see indie bands operating with twigs and some chewing gum figure out how to put together a poster for their band is embarassing.
You have the money, you just don't have the contacts or skills to find a good designer which charges you a fair price. Big design firms will rip you off. Their job is to get corruption contracts from the public sector or big enterprises, and then reward their insider later with a nice fake job.
Saying you don't have the money for a designer is a bit like saying you can't go on business trip because the company can't afford to purchase a jet airplane right now.
You said it - and the same is true for many of the other talents from Ai. I've worked with gobs of artists, accountant, MBAs, developers, appliance repair techs, and so on. Ai does a better job than most of them, but not as good as the best of them.
This is an excellent point, and it doesn't only apply to art/design.
In almost any intellectual domain, including coding, the models are already ahead of the average human. But instead, we compare them to the very best humans, which almost no one on the planet has access to.
$20 for a lot of access to better-than-average is a world-changingly good deal!
This reads like the opening scene of the Monkey’s Paw. Doubt it will feel like a good deal in the long run.
> they can tell they’re AI and point to things that the AI did “wrong” and a human artist would do better.
Pretty much all of the designers we contacted recently were using AI to draw. Especially on those kinds of cheap work. They are just a bit more professional in the prompting and can do final touch in Photoshop.
You’re absolutely right! (See what I did, there?)
I mentioned something similar, in a previous comment.
The sad part, is that the same thing is likely to happen to design, as is already happening with software development.
The junior training track is going to get the bottom ripped out. Established outfits like Pentagram will do fine, but lesser ones, like small design shops, are likely to get run out of business by AI image generation, which will improve quickly.
The problem is that these are the shops that train the designers that end up in companies like Pentagram.
Or only Ivy-League sheepskins will get junior jobs at the big studios, which will be the only ones left standing, when the dust settles.
If taste is all that's left you can't fault people for discriminting on taste
Totally agree. Opinions are cheap. People can be drawn to “horrible” art, and small artists - especially social media managers - right now are creating intentionally bad mspaint.exe 1994 aesthetics because AI art looks like it was created by real artists, and it’s the only way to differentiate
You can’t even differentiate it that way. AI generates perfect MS paint aesthetics
>I think it would be interesting to see if people could reliably distinguish between AI generated flyers and human made flyers
i think people can point those out pretty consistently for in-the-wild cheap posters, since the 2 types are often bad in different way
My take is most users (who generate these posters) are not aesthetically astute and/or care enough to put in more effort.
> I’ve worked with dozens of budget friendly designers on Fiverr and consistently get way worse results than I’ve gotten from AI models.
That makes sense given they're on Fiverr. However, Fiverr freelancers are now just AI prompters :) doesn't matter whether it's code or art.
To me, they look very much like Canva style designs. Some pre-existing design template that someone took and then smooshed their own dates and information into.
Yea these look bad you don't need to be a pro designer to see that.
This misses the point about complaints of AI slop. It’s not about “worse”, it’s about “distracting”. It’s about AI fingerprints overwhelming the consumer. It’s not too different from hiring a freelancer who does a blatant stylistic ripoff of a popular artist in an unflattering way: the consumer of the work sees the ripoff first, focuses on the ripoff, is unable to appreciate the message being delivered. AI slop is overwhelming and distracting to the consumer in that it communicates messages of laziness, disinterest, disregard for the underlying message. Whether this is true or not in every case, we’ve seen enough cases where we have to start by considering it. It’s the vehicle for scams and spam. It’s like sending an email that starts with “FIVE TRICKS TO HAVE BETTER SKIN” or any other meme spam line.
A human freelancer might do work that is technically worse. Worse can be distracting in ways that are, well… worse. But it’s different, it doesn’t tap into a collective cultural understanding of “AI slop.” It may communicate even more poorly, but it’s not the same problem.
It doesn't have to look "cartoony". Harness issue. Your 2026 models are trained on a sufficiently broad set of images that style is almost a solved problem.
Have you considered looking up designers you like and asking them instead of "budget friendly designers on Fiverr"?
At least for me, the enumerated svg-like icons give it away, but that's merely a prompt fix.
>but a small local event or business probably won’t have the budget to hire them or know where to find them.
And yet, somehow, up until what maybe 2024, every single small event or business in every local market around the earth managed to figure this out. I guess we've lost that ancestral knowledge of how this was possibly done and afforded in a few dozen months.
Maybe it's just me, but even on pure aesthetic reasons I would take a Comic Sans and clipart poster made in Word over the slop.
At this point I have some kind of a physical repulsion to the generated posters, and it's always easy to tell from the fontwork and the iconography, let alone illustrations if there are any.
Nah, AI cant design prooper pages, and posters. Period. Even someone with basic aesthetic skills and a knack for illustrations will create a much better postan, than these. Because you'll immediately recognize the human in them. AI has no soul, no experiences, it's just a primitive neural net.
The problem’s not so much that the posters are AI generated, but that they’re too crowded and unfocused. Their individual elements seem fine and look good, but when taken as a whole they feel wrong.
This may be a failure mode similar to juniors using AI and making it much harder for seniors to find the bugs, because the code actually looks good at first sight.
I don’t think the blog author actually has any design skills based on the prompts and the AI obviously can’t nudge them in the right direction or help them clarify their brief, like a real designer (i.e. not random online freelancers) would.
I’ve been diving into Ink Master highlights on YouTube lately. These are typically all excellent artists but they don’t always produce excellent work. I’ve seen some hands that could have come out of an early gen ai model permanently inked into someone’s skin.
I sure hope it’s better than some random person you paid $20
i would never go to an event that cares so little about people buying tickets they can't even put a pen to paper or just use a photograph. it reeks of laziness.
>Maybe, but a small local event or business probably won’t have the budget to hire them or know where to find them.
This is funny to read given I am currently on a Japan trip with 3 friends and we actively avoid every small restaurant that have AI generated images of their food. Using AI generated bullshit just shows that you really dont want to put in the work to produce something actually charming. Hell, we've seen a food menu drawn by a toddler and it was infinitely more sympathetic than all the AI generated Wagyu images.
You reminded me of this tweet I came across recently
https://x.com/tylerglaiel/status/2099382887045108154
This is exactly what I meant.
That'll be a real debate at the moment in Japan, I'll bet. Because the law is pretty strict when it comes to accurate advertising.
Given that any advertisement with AI generated food would be illegal there I don't imagine you have to avoid very many!
I just got back from a month there and recall perhaps 2 posters that may have been AI. I actually ran into several public art exhibits as well.
>Given that any advertisement with AI generated food would be illegal there
So you never actually walked the streets ive been in recently lol
I was in Japan in Spring, I didn't notice any AI-generated ads/menus (not implying you're lying, just curious if it's become a trend since then, or if it's a particular area).
But I recall this simple looking promotion: https://imgur.com/a/fbM8Akb . The photo looks professionally done, and not AI. Then again, maybe they googled for "cheesecake photo".
I just image searched for "cheesecake", I didn't find this photo in the results, but there are a few results where I now have to wonder "Is that AI?"
[flagged]
[dead]
Cool man, how good of a job would you do at your craft if I only gave you $5
To me if you ask to a 10 years old kid and give him a PC with Microsoft Paint on it it will you will have a much better result than any AI-generated option in the post. If there are graphics designer that produce a worse result of what AI creates, it's because they probably use AI as well.
The problem of AI generated stuff (we see the problem of manifests, but I'm a software engineer and with computer programs it's exactly the same thing) is that they immediately look non-human, and our brain trained itself to detect, and thus get irritated by, AI generated content.
It looks fake, it hurts to see, it seems fine at first glance fine but it's not, everyone seems identical because the AI is not, despite of the name, creative, it just a hyper complex copy/paste machine, and obviously the result just looks copy/paste as well.
> To me if you ask to a 10 years old kid and give him a PC with Microsoft Paint on it it will you will have a much better result than any AI-generated option in the post.
FWIW, statements like this are so patently ridiculous that it actually hurts your cause.
> To me if you ask to a 10 years old kid and give him a PC with Microsoft Paint on it it will you will have a much better result than any AI-generated option in the post.
Sorry, if it's a joke it doesn't land very well.
Before AI, if a 10yo did these posters for a school project, people would just tell their parents to not do the homework for their kid. These are far above what 99.9% 10yo can do.
> a 10 years old kid and give him a PC with Microsoft Paint
You'd run afoul of child labor protestors. I'd just prompt the AI to generate a poster in the style of a 10-year-old with Microsoft Paint.
Sure but why?
Outside of a small joy of the organizing committee, is an incrementally "better" (which is almost entirely subjective anyway) worth the trouvle?
AI irritates people. This is fine if you're making political cartoons or racist memes, but not so fine for ad copy.
A lot of posters or arts in general are to be seen once and never again. If you put pre-AI arts together in an exhibition like at the top of the article are you sure it wouldn't irritate people?
I walk past countless of such arts everyday, none of them registered after even 15 mins. Maybe you have better taste, but don't try to project your opinion as that of the majority.
Read what I said again. AI art falls into the uncanny valley range and solicits disgust, ire or suprise in most people.
Sometimes that's okay, but probably not in ad copy.
This is provably false. AI YouTube thumbnails trounce human thumbnails (often nearly doubling the click-through rate according to A/B testing), and people rate AI art more highly than human art on average when they don't know that it's AI.
Just admit that you are scared of the future that's coming and it's eliciting irrational hatred, and that's causing you to lash out. At least that'd be honest and we'd understand where your coming from even if we didn't share your views.
> trounce human thumbnails (often nearly doubling the click-through rate according to A/B testing)
That stat sounds more than dubious. Do you have a reference for it that isn't published by someone with a vested interest in people using AI?
Not engaging with your second argument, it's just trollbait. But for your first argument, there is a big difference between info graphics trying to convey information and video thumbnails trying to trigger a click