The one and only time I've done consulting for a pharmaceutical company, I was presented with an AI generated ad for a drug. They kept asking what I liked about the image and the only acceptable response was how are you all finding ways to make medicine more impersonable than it already is
I saw a job listing the other day for an “AI Advocate” (I don’t remember the specific job title). Basically the job was to promote the use of AI products to other companies. It got me thinking that their AI replacements for humans must not be very good if they need a human to promote them, otherwise the AI would be able to successfully sell itself.
This could be said of any other job though. "I guess AI isn't that good, because it can't replace ______." Why would you assume that AI advocate should be especially easy for AI?
AI chats are known for their overconfident persuasiveness, especially when incorrect. IIRC the job was pretty much just yapping that exact type of rhetoric.
I used ai image gen back when it first released. I don’t post it, and I was looking for it to do something very specific that it couldn’t, and probably still can’t, do.
Fish fins, for example, are a struggle when applied to humans, so mermaids end up a mess. At least back when I was using it to muse, it was a good MUSE, but horrible at making what I had in mind (I’m aphantasic, so I’m not that picky with visuals, but these suuuuucked)
I think I’m separate from what you describe, tho, because I’m using it as a muse (good proportions in different positions and stuff like that) rather than it doing the work for me? Plus being just that once; I’m not doing this actively, but it did help.
But idk, I’ve used ai image gen. I recognize I’m part of the problem, but in my defense that’s all I used it for, and never since that first muse session when ai images were -the thing of the week- where I tried to get ai to do basic things and it couldn’t so I asked for increasingly niche images and it failed at basically every mid-step
I was traveling, and this one city I was going through had SD images everywhere as advertising for their downtown, and the quote was "celebrate what's real". They had the audacity to use AI images and tell me to celebrate what's real. Wtf
Edit: needless to say, I did not go to their downtown.
As a graphic designer I... don't hate that AI exists for that use case. It's admittedly a pretty nice way to iterate on rough ideas for me and my clients so we can get to a common understanding. But it's only going to get them 50% of the way there as it is now and I hope that people continue to recognize that.
I don’t think there’s anything actually wrong with what you did, but I also don’t think you should kid yourself that you didn’t use AI shit for your business just because it wasn’t the final logo.
People are being very pedantic here. You used AI for the logo in the same way I would use SketchUp for house designs. I still want a professional to do the real thing, but needed something to use to show the professional what I was thinking about having as the final product, since I don't know how to do real house designs. I don't see what you did as bad, since you went to a professional for your actual product.
That's a very interesting quandary. I know most workers usually hate the revision portion of the process where they're throwing away their work, but they're also getting billable hours for it.
So if an artist genuinely has future clients lined up, and is only starved for time, I imagine they'd want the path that gives them the most finalized pieces they can share. But it would have to be case by case.
Hey, if you don't have much of a budget that's fine. What AI indicates is that your thing is either too shitty to photograph, or that you don't much care what it looks like.
In my anecdotal experience which is of course the most solid and accurate (/s) people I’ve talked to within my circles do care just not enough to do anything. Pretty much along the lines, “of AI, weird, anyways”
The average consumer cares about the quality of a product as well as how affordable it is. AI...I dunno, it doesn't really make a product "look" better if it's ads or packaging or what have you, have a "meh" AI art vibe. AI art, because of its ease of generation, is vast becoming a sign of genericness.
Consequently, this study suggests that using the term “Artificial Intelligence” in marketing campaigns and product descriptions may negatively impact consumer demand.
I mean, this is actually the reaction that it gets. Llms are being sold to everybody because they look kinda like they could maybe be useful for a bunch of things, then it turns out they're actually worse that a good 1st week junior at all of them, so the only people who buy in are those so divorced from the front that they just have no idea (which necessitates that either they don't listen to their peeps, of they have some real grifters in their advisory ranks) or people who never intended on actually making a product (to be clear, this is worse. Carelessness and indirect grift is bad. Direct gift is worse)
Tested. Verified*. Obviously it depends on the quality of the output but we're already past the point where the best models, with appropriate fine tuning, are noticeably AI on first glance.
*I work in market research, this is a sample of 3 creative tests.
Pro tip you don’t actually have to normalize this reaction because high effort media will always stand apart from low effort media, regardless of how it was created. My problem with “normalizing this reaction” is because I literally know dozens of artists who have been falsely accused of using AI generated imagery when they literally just are surrealist photo collagists and idiots automatically think that anything in that style is AI and harass actual artists for their actual work that they made with their actual hands
I mean it IS normalized. They don't care to put effort into marketing and proper product representation. What does that speak about them, as a company?
Actually the more a company spends on advertising the more it's going to be a cheap scammy product. Have you ever bought anything off TV? I don't recommend it. $29 minimum for things that should be in a $5 misc bin at Walmart. Why? You are paying for their marketing.
AI is about increasing profits. Consumer choice is not a thing when 99% of companies follow the same profit driven incentives. Reactions like this, while good, are not going to change anything. You cant make change through consumption. You must make change through labor and labor organization.
This sub is just filled with "consumption" based solutions to the point that I feel it is almost negative in trying to fight the actual problems with AI and art.
I want to see more pro union and pro labor posts here. This "change through consumption" crap is really getting old.
Not too sure about that, that might be the case but currently, they would need much more training to not mess up facial features, to make images truly lifelike and to follow prompt instructions better.
I've used dalle a fair bit and I came to the conclusion that you will never get a truly accurate representation of a person, such as hair on a bald persons head, stubble turning into a moustache, tons of wrinkles for no reason, etc. It only seems good at generating cartoon characters, even then though, there are still inaccuracies.
That's not true. DeepSeek showed that smart people are working on it that are not entirely motivated by just making a cheaper way to advertise. I think the wests a implementation of AI is so horribly corrupted by capitalist incentives. I think we'll continue to see advancements out of China and Asia. It's definitely not "just throw more data at it".
DeepSeek showed that the Western "just throw more data at it" nonsense is a failed strategy, and certainly China is going to continue developing this technology further. Their approach is much smarter, they build different models for different problems instead of trying to build a general purpose model that can do everything at once. Then DeepSeek can switch between different models to solve different problems, instead of trying to make every problem conform to their one general purpose model.
Let me clarify - I don't think any advancement of this technology is going to come out of Silicon Valley. They're all trying to build the Homer Car.
Lmao, half of you are playing games and using devices in which a third of the frames are AI generated while tho other half are guzzling down products in which AI had an effect in at least one step of the production chain.
Hell, error correction for microprocessors and Creation of PCBS has been handled by AI for s while now
If you want to get purist, literally get out of the internet and go live in the woods like a destitute.
AI is the new "algorithm" - it used to mean something specific and technical, now it's just a colloquial term for "consumer-market generative AI output". You know this, but you're choosing to be smugly superior anyways. Why? Seriously, what do you get out of this?
I'm one of the few dudes who didn't think sewing was for women back in school, and let me tell you - that shit is worth having as a skill. Legitimately being able to tailor your own clothing is legit.
However, I'm not gonna dump on people without the skill to do it - just like I won't dump on people who use modern tools to create graphics.
You know it’s funny is that there’s entire artistic movements (even in fashion itself) all about challenging the idea that art is inherently a demonstration of technical ability, and that such a world view is actually incredibly philosophically shallow, limited, and frankly incoherent when you’re trying to actually decide what is and isn’t art. For instance, Johnny Rotten safety pinning his sleeves onto his shirt is a far more interesting tailor than anyone at a high-end fashion boutique even if he literally doesn’t know how to sew.
Most people buying clothes aren't looking for high fashion, they're looking for something comfortable in a colour that they like. Those who are looking for fashion tend to get clothes that are originally designed and made by a tailor, and then copied so others may wear them, importantly with the consent of the tailor. These are akin to YCH commissions, since the artist/tailor gets paid for the design.
This doesn't apply to AI image generation, as the artists are almost never asked for their consent before their work gets copied and cloned a million times over. Nor do they get any sort of compensation for their stolen work.
Fun fact, fashion is one of the few artistic media that has literally never been protected by copyright law and has literally always been filled with people having their work copied and cloned millions of times over with no recourse. And this isn’t even considered to be a bad thing. This is just how fashion works as an art.
Most people buying art aren't looking for high art, they're looking for something that they enjoy looking at. Those who are into art are in no way restricted from buying non-AI art if they want to. The whole argument about intellectual theft is bullshit, every single fashion designer steals ideas and inspiration from elsewhere.
I automate business processes for a living, not using AI (yet). I literally improve productivity for a living.
Making an argument about the consequences of people trying to make a living was exactly my point, but you fail to realize that that argument has been made literally hundreds of times over the last two centuries as new technologies have come out that cause concerns for workers, Including for fabric and sewing.
The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Luddites:
The Luddites were members of a 19th-century movement of English textile workers who opposed the use of certain types of automated machinery due to concerns relating to worker pay and output quality. They often destroyed the machines in organised raids.[1][2] Members of the group referred to themselves as Luddites, self-described followers of "Ned Ludd", a legendary weaver whose name was used as a pseudonym in threatening letters to mill owners and government officials.[3]
And they did so via slavery. Still do in some parts of the world. So their argument is still valid. Clothing people requires these tools, art does not. AI 'art' doesn't need to exist.
The one and only time I've done consulting for a pharmaceutical company, I was presented with an AI generated ad for a drug. They kept asking what I liked about the image and the only acceptable response was how are you all finding ways to make medicine more impersonable than it already is
If I hear an “AI” voiceover I have the same reaction. Definitely won’t be buying anything from Dr. Squatch.
I absolutely hate computer generated voices, especially when I have to listen to them for a long time. An AI narrated video? Nope.
I saw a job listing the other day for an “AI Advocate” (I don’t remember the specific job title). Basically the job was to promote the use of AI products to other companies. It got me thinking that their AI replacements for humans must not be very good if they need a human to promote them, otherwise the AI would be able to successfully sell itself.
This could be said of any other job though. "I guess AI isn't that good, because it can't replace ______." Why would you assume that AI advocate should be especially easy for AI?
AI chats are known for their overconfident persuasiveness, especially when incorrect. IIRC the job was pretty much just yapping that exact type of rhetoric.
In general, salespeople are still employed, as far as I know. AI hasn't been able to replace them. Perhaps AI is too gullible to the client.
Of all the job sectors AI could take out, sales is the one I'm hoping for the most...
When a company uses ai I put them on my blacklist, I don’t touch their slop ever again.
When people use ai I know to never interact with them, because it’s a waste of my time.
When a user online posts ai slop, I block them so their shit doesn’t show up in my feed.
I used ai image gen back when it first released. I don’t post it, and I was looking for it to do something very specific that it couldn’t, and probably still can’t, do. Fish fins, for example, are a struggle when applied to humans, so mermaids end up a mess. At least back when I was using it to muse, it was a good MUSE, but horrible at making what I had in mind (I’m aphantasic, so I’m not that picky with visuals, but these suuuuucked)
I think I’m separate from what you describe, tho, because I’m using it as a muse (good proportions in different positions and stuff like that) rather than it doing the work for me? Plus being just that once; I’m not doing this actively, but it did help.
But idk, I’ve used ai image gen. I recognize I’m part of the problem, but in my defense that’s all I used it for, and never since that first muse session when ai images were -the thing of the week- where I tried to get ai to do basic things and it couldn’t so I asked for increasingly niche images and it failed at basically every mid-step
I was traveling, and this one city I was going through had SD images everywhere as advertising for their downtown, and the quote was "celebrate what's real". They had the audacity to use AI images and tell me to celebrate what's real. Wtf
Edit: needless to say, I did not go to their downtown.
Nah, it's not that they can't afford professional artists, it's that they don't want to.
Which is far worse of course.
As a graphic designer I... don't hate that AI exists for that use case. It's admittedly a pretty nice way to iterate on rough ideas for me and my clients so we can get to a common understanding. But it's only going to get them 50% of the way there as it is now and I hope that people continue to recognize that.
Except, you literally are describing using AI to save yourself the cost of several rounds of revisions with a graphic designer…
I don’t think there’s anything actually wrong with what you did, but I also don’t think you should kid yourself that you didn’t use AI shit for your business just because it wasn’t the final logo.
So like you didn’t find it useful at all for your business? Like not even to help you clarify your vision to a graphic designer?
People are being very pedantic here. You used AI for the logo in the same way I would use SketchUp for house designs. I still want a professional to do the real thing, but needed something to use to show the professional what I was thinking about having as the final product, since I don't know how to do real house designs. I don't see what you did as bad, since you went to a professional for your actual product.
That's a very interesting quandary. I know most workers usually hate the revision portion of the process where they're throwing away their work, but they're also getting billable hours for it.
So if an artist genuinely has future clients lined up, and is only starved for time, I imagine they'd want the path that gives them the most finalized pieces they can share. But it would have to be case by case.
People here would definitely feel that way.
70% of human beings? They buying the ai shit.
According to Facebook, 80% of your friends should be AI bots, so that checks out.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19368623.2024.2368040
Hey, if you don't have much of a budget that's fine. What AI indicates is that your thing is either too shitty to photograph, or that you don't much care what it looks like.
Hate to tell you but you're the only one thinking that. The average consumer could not care less.
That's hyperbole. Perhaps the majority of consumers don't care, but some do.
It's not hyperbole. I said "the average consumer", not "all consumers".
Probably referring to "you're the only one thinking that." There's at least two of us :p
But yeah, probably not most
At least three
Oh. In that case, yes.
In my anecdotal experience which is of course the most solid and accurate (/s) people I’ve talked to within my circles do care just not enough to do anything. Pretty much along the lines, “of AI, weird, anyways”
The average consumer cares about the quality of a product as well as how affordable it is. AI...I dunno, it doesn't really make a product "look" better if it's ads or packaging or what have you, have a "meh" AI art vibe. AI art, because of its ease of generation, is vast becoming a sign of genericness.
The average consumer couldn't pick out AI generated marketing anyway
Depends on your target demographic I guess. Younger consumers will notice, older ones not so much.
Why is that a good argument? The comic doesn't say "all people will think like this" or even imply it.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19368623.2024.2368040
Don't know what that link is but it's staying blue unless you want to tell me what's behind it.
It is a link to an academic journal.
The OP is not about using AI terminology in marketing campaigns, it's about using AI imagery.
I mean, this is actually the reaction that it gets. Llms are being sold to everybody because they look kinda like they could maybe be useful for a bunch of things, then it turns out they're actually worse that a good 1st week junior at all of them, so the only people who buy in are those so divorced from the front that they just have no idea (which necessitates that either they don't listen to their peeps, of they have some real grifters in their advisory ranks) or people who never intended on actually making a product (to be clear, this is worse. Carelessness and indirect grift is bad. Direct gift is worse)
the problem is commoners won't notice it's AI
Tested. Verified*. Obviously it depends on the quality of the output but we're already past the point where the best models, with appropriate fine tuning, are noticeably AI on first glance.
*I work in market research, this is a sample of 3 creative tests.
AI would give you the finger if it could draw one.
Pro tip you don’t actually have to normalize this reaction because high effort media will always stand apart from low effort media, regardless of how it was created. My problem with “normalizing this reaction” is because I literally know dozens of artists who have been falsely accused of using AI generated imagery when they literally just are surrealist photo collagists and idiots automatically think that anything in that style is AI and harass actual artists for their actual work that they made with their actual hands
If it looks like trash then kiss my ass
I mean, even the crappiest advertising literally makes Big Tech trillions of dollars, so unfortunately I don’t think is reality.
Toupee fallacy.
Yupp. Videos like these fit that pretty well. Unfortunate decision, since the toothbat is really useful.
I mean it IS normalized. They don't care to put effort into marketing and proper product representation. What does that speak about them, as a company?
Actually the more a company spends on advertising the more it's going to be a cheap scammy product. Have you ever bought anything off TV? I don't recommend it. $29 minimum for things that should be in a $5 misc bin at Walmart. Why? You are paying for their marketing.
AI is about increasing profits. Consumer choice is not a thing when 99% of companies follow the same profit driven incentives. Reactions like this, while good, are not going to change anything. You cant make change through consumption. You must make change through labor and labor organization.
This sub is just filled with "consumption" based solutions to the point that I feel it is almost negative in trying to fight the actual problems with AI and art.
I want to see more pro union and pro labor posts here. This "change through consumption" crap is really getting old.
You can do both. Make informed decisions about how you spend your money, and foster unions.
Yes. But what is this sub primarily filled with?
Hard to differentiate
Better to assume they are cheaping out on the product or overcharging you if they can afford to advertise
Trust me, you're going to have zero ability to discern what is AI generated in less than two years.
I already can't easily identify most of it I'm screwed
Not too sure about that, that might be the case but currently, they would need much more training to not mess up facial features, to make images truly lifelike and to follow prompt instructions better.
I've used dalle a fair bit and I came to the conclusion that you will never get a truly accurate representation of a person, such as hair on a bald persons head, stubble turning into a moustache, tons of wrinkles for no reason, etc. It only seems good at generating cartoon characters, even then though, there are still inaccuracies.
Their only solution is "throw more data at it!"
The technology definitely can get better, but you shouldn't assume it will. Just look at the people developing it.
That's not true. DeepSeek showed that smart people are working on it that are not entirely motivated by just making a cheaper way to advertise. I think the wests a implementation of AI is so horribly corrupted by capitalist incentives. I think we'll continue to see advancements out of China and Asia. It's definitely not "just throw more data at it".
DeepSeek showed that the Western "just throw more data at it" nonsense is a failed strategy, and certainly China is going to continue developing this technology further. Their approach is much smarter, they build different models for different problems instead of trying to build a general purpose model that can do everything at once. Then DeepSeek can switch between different models to solve different problems, instead of trying to make every problem conform to their one general purpose model.
Let me clarify - I don't think any advancement of this technology is going to come out of Silicon Valley. They're all trying to build the Homer Car.
You're on, I'm sorry for what's coming.
Lmao, half of you are playing games and using devices in which a third of the frames are AI generated while tho other half are guzzling down products in which AI had an effect in at least one step of the production chain.
Hell, error correction for microprocessors and Creation of PCBS has been handled by AI for s while now
If you want to get purist, literally get out of the internet and go live in the woods like a destitute.
AI is the new "algorithm" - it used to mean something specific and technical, now it's just a colloquial term for "consumer-market generative AI output". You know this, but you're choosing to be smugly superior anyways. Why? Seriously, what do you get out of this?
that's literally not what's it about
clearly beneficial usages are welcome. stealing artists work is not
This art made by an artist wearing clothes made by machines because they didn't want to pay a tailor.
ME, doing shitty sewing on my own old clothes: "You know, I'm something of a tailor myself"
I'm one of the few dudes who didn't think sewing was for women back in school, and let me tell you - that shit is worth having as a skill. Legitimately being able to tailor your own clothing is legit.
However, I'm not gonna dump on people without the skill to do it - just like I won't dump on people who use modern tools to create graphics.
You know it’s funny is that there’s entire artistic movements (even in fashion itself) all about challenging the idea that art is inherently a demonstration of technical ability, and that such a world view is actually incredibly philosophically shallow, limited, and frankly incoherent when you’re trying to actually decide what is and isn’t art. For instance, Johnny Rotten safety pinning his sleeves onto his shirt is a far more interesting tailor than anyone at a high-end fashion boutique even if he literally doesn’t know how to sew.
What the fuck kind of garbage argument is that, gtfo here
Everyone laugh at this person. Heckle and pursue them all their days.
Do you not think fashion is art?
Most people buying clothes aren't looking for high fashion, they're looking for something comfortable in a colour that they like. Those who are looking for fashion tend to get clothes that are originally designed and made by a tailor, and then copied so others may wear them, importantly with the consent of the tailor. These are akin to YCH commissions, since the artist/tailor gets paid for the design.
This doesn't apply to AI image generation, as the artists are almost never asked for their consent before their work gets copied and cloned a million times over. Nor do they get any sort of compensation for their stolen work.
Fun fact, fashion is one of the few artistic media that has literally never been protected by copyright law and has literally always been filled with people having their work copied and cloned millions of times over with no recourse. And this isn’t even considered to be a bad thing. This is just how fashion works as an art.
Most people buying art aren't looking for high art, they're looking for something that they enjoy looking at. Those who are into art are in no way restricted from buying non-AI art if they want to. The whole argument about intellectual theft is bullshit, every single fashion designer steals ideas and inspiration from elsewhere.
See, here's my problem. I took some time to think it over.
You don't actually care about art, here. You care about what you do. Which, I'm guessing, involves tailoring.
You brought tailoring into this out of nowhere. Nobody was talking about it but you had to.
This conversation was about AI art and the consequences of it on people trying to make a living, and your retort was sewing machines took jobs too.
You really wanna stand by that? Is that the hill you wanna die on?
I automate business processes for a living, not using AI (yet). I literally improve productivity for a living.
Making an argument about the consequences of people trying to make a living was exactly my point, but you fail to realize that that argument has been made literally hundreds of times over the last two centuries as new technologies have come out that cause concerns for workers, Including for fabric and sewing.
The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Luddites:
You're just Ludd-AI-tes
Yeah I've seen this nonsense before. "Yet you live in capitalism, curious". Bullshit.
The world needs more clothes than human hands can make. Not true of illustrations.
Humans clothed themselves before machines existed, so clearly that isn't true.
Want to try a different argument?
And they did so via slavery. Still do in some parts of the world. So their argument is still valid. Clothing people requires these tools, art does not. AI 'art' doesn't need to exist.
Are you stupid? You think that the only way everyone had clothes 2000 years ago was slavery?
The Amish still make their own clothes today, without any slavery or machines beyond a spinning jenny.
Why does scaling matter to the argument at all?
I've got an AI on my refurbished Linux laptop - where I can fucking see it. :cocks gun:
Generational AI that's taking work from actual people is bad
I just assume anyone who loves these chatbots is a fellow chatbot. No real actual humans could be that stupid.
On the one hand, do not underestimate how stupid people can be, on the other...
Oh look, it's still pretending to be a person.
Did you read the sub name? If you don’t like it, fuck off somewhere else. Or make you own AI loving instance.