do you know what happens when everyone has access to the same AI tools and the same prompt formulas? Noise. lots of it.
a sea of mediocrity.
so no. that 4yr degree isnt useless. that decade of experience isnt wasted. and that portfolio they just called "adorable"? that's the reason prompt monkeys with a god complex will fade into the static.
While I totally agree, I'm not optimistic about how many creative fields will look in five years.
What do we know about clients? They want it done yesterday, they want to nitpick about every little thing and have it all their way, and they want it all to be half price. Generative AI is essentially free right now, can be endlessly tweaked to give someone a very close approximation of what they want, and you can get a result in just a few seconds. And that's how things are right now. Imagine how it will be in a year or two.
Here's my real worry. While I'm not overly concerned about AI being able to layout a print-ready 100 page magazine or catalog in the near future, I'm very concerned about all the low hanging fruit jobs disappearing over the next couple years. Basically, the entry level jobs that used to be filled by recent graduates are going to be replaced by generative AI either by clients or by agencies. Fewer jobs at the front end of the industry means fewer opportunities to get started building a career, which means fewer people studying graphc design to begin with.
The change won't be immediate, of course. But over the next decade, I fear that we're going to see a steady decline in the number of people pursuing an education in creative and artistic fields.
The other part that concerns me is the general devaluation of creative output. As more and more people use (and figure out ways to justify using) generate AI, the idea of spending money to have an artist, illustrator, or designer render something will seem increasingly foreign to wouldbe clients. And as the models get better (and they will get better), more and more people who would have hired a designer will either do it themselves and be happy with something that's "good enough" (especially if it's basically free).
Also, there's this (https://chatgpt.com/share/67f16e3c-1ba4-8006-baad-71243f9d5ac9). I could have fiddled with it to make it better, but if that's what I wanted, then I'd have a really good starting point, and it took me almost no time to type it up.
People thought the same exact thing about photography. I can’t imagine this will turn out much different. Not to mention it’s only a matter of time until Ai feeds of so much AI it screws up the images. The internet is so filled with them now that it will likely cripple itself. Think a screenshotted image, everybody takes a screenshot image, that’s how you those discolored poor quality memes. Because it’s not original data
And ..gasp!!… CLIP ART will destroy the design profession!! And Casio drum machines will ruin musical careers!! Word processors will destroy type layout!! etc. etc.
Every technological disruption made waves of fear among the old guard creatives. Yes .. now the church picnic organizer lady can print out her own WordArt™ Comic Sans flyer for the bake sale, but that didn’t destroy any careers.
I’m not saying AI isn’t a present threat. It is. But adaptability and working with what is, is the way forward. SOO the fear mingerubf and adapt.
I have an older cousin who had his own photography studio back in the '80s and early '90s, dark room, negatives, all that jazz. And it wasn't for things like weddings, he actually developed film for regular people with small cameras. He was perhaps one step up from the drugstore, because he could touch up the photos. And he made a lot of money. They were a lot of people with 110 and 35 mm cameras who need to have their film developed and prints made, etc.
Alas, his business had to close after smartphones got good enough that people just took their own pictures and did their own editing.
He retired a few years later. Interestingly enough, his son took up digital photography and has an pretty decent business now.
Exactly, magazine and advertisements were over half (idk exact numbers) well through the 50's and 60's, well after the invention of good cameras and printing techniques. Eventually that faded as photography became a cheaper sales solution. Photography truly vanished a humongous career option for painters. Leyendeckers and Rockwell's werent just known because of their incredible abilities, they were pushed into public consciousness through advertising. My great aunt was a fabulous artist who had real advertising painting jobs in the 70s (coca cola Santa, local products) and her clientele dropped off significantly throughout what should have been her mid career. Luckily she was married to a successful plumber.
Hypocritically, I threw this comment into chatgpt for a lazy fact check , and it states it's highly historically accurate, although the shift was even more than 90% photo advertising in the 70s, gradually shifting in the start of the 40s
I hope you're right. I don't think it's the same thing at all. Generative IA is not a new kind of art or even a tool, it's stealing other people's work. It's so fucked up. I can't believe we let them get away with it.
There wasn’t a choice. There was no opt in or opt out for training. And the legal system gives zero protection for creators of any format. They weren’t “allowed” to do it. They just did, and there were zero consequences. Zero attempt to compensate those whose works were used for training (I’ve a feeling logging sources conveniently slipped the minds of those aggregating the data). People like Musk are a good example of the mindset. Just do whatever. Charge forth with zero interest in doing things correctly. Just do them. Deal with consequences later, if forced by the legal system. Not justice system; we don’t have a justice system. We have a legal system. If you have enough money or are backed by massive money, rules don’t apply. That’s what every AI development company is doing. Consequences are someone else’s problem to deal with. Right now is the time to make mad cash.
That’s cool. THOSE type of clients can get some ai shit slapped together and they’ll love it.
In the meantime, there’s clients who actually want to differentiate themselves with something original
Still working for me with Brave browser. But it's just a short ChatGPT conversation.
My goal is to create a vector version of a mason jar full of lemonade. In order to do that, I need you to generate a high resolution PNG file that has an array of image assets that includes each of the following elements so that I can trace the raster image into vector: Mason jar with only liquid in it Striped straw Lemon slice with clearly defined sections Ice cubes Each element should have a moderate amount of detail rather than being a minimal line art version. Remember to ensure that only black and white are used. No grayscale or halftone should be present in the image. Create a preview for me to see in addition to a high resolution PNG file.
Image Created
Here is the high-resolution PNG file you requested:
Not just mediocrity, but everything will look the same. Current trends amplified. The only catalysts for pushing design (or fashion, or music, or anything creative) in new directions will be humans. AI didn't have the capacity for creativity as its output is the result of learning from datasets. It's not designed (pun intended) to be creative.
Companies will soon realise they need humans again to stand out from that AI generated noise.
Homogenized generative crap is where things will end up if nobody finds a way to avoid recursion. Ironically, the few companies that come out on top will be training their models on the competition. At some point, all of them will start generating very similar crap. If they aren’t training on what’s on the internet which costs them nothing, then they’ll have to train it from curated, unique content, which should include compensation for those who created the training data. Three guesses on how that goes.
Mediocrity and ‘noise’ has been around a lot longer than Generative AI, and people have been gobbling it up voraciously, demanding more and more, which is the primary reason why we’re in this situation. I realise this is a generalisation, but ‘Art’, in virtually all shapes and sizes, has become more generic in order to appease the tastes of the masses so that it can rank higher on streaming and social media platforms. As this trend continues (it is naive to assume otherwise), AI will find it easier to generate content that adheres to this formula, thus creating an ouroboros that feeds back into itself: Art is created to rank algorithmically; consumers are exposed to the art promoted by the algorithm, thus shaping their tastes and expectations; the algorithm demands more art to promote; art is created to rank algorithmically… so the cycle goes.
In a way, this could usher in an extremely creative movement for human creators. In order to differentiate ourselves from the ocean of formulaic ‘content’, human creators will likely focus on art that breaks from rigid structures so that it is harder for algorithms to mimic. This will likely percolate into every creative industry: Art; Design; Film; Music; Literature etc., and it could genuinely be the dawn of a new golden era in human creativity; one that pushes boundaries and shatters long-standing expectations and assumptions within each industry/art-form.
In short, Generative AI is going nowhere. It’s up to us to redefine the standards of what human creativity can be by reaching into unexplored realms of creative expression.
Thing is , that self-optimizing campaigns could become more diverse than we can imagine today. But first marketing people will create that mediocrity what you predict …
I already see the occasional job posting for this. Fortunately, companies love to low-ball offers for highly skilled positions and pay less than entry level fools. The postings I’ve seen are for like $40k/year. It will attract mediocre applicants. And what will they use for a portfolio? I could see a number of people using an llm to enhance their prompts while gooning all day.
I get that people will use this and no one will care or notice and it’s not your point, but that’s not how you baseball. You don’t hold the bat like a spear and threaten the ball.
In most cases the ball isn't going 1000 mph while on fire either. Let's face it, baseball's as boring as Mom and apple pie. It's about time someone jazzed it up.
Thank you very fucking much. As an industry designer who also illustrates, there seems to be too many designers who strangely hold the misconception you've corrected.
Not just designers. Among other things, I do high-end UX design. The engineers I work with refer to the user flow artifacts I deliver as coming from “the art department”.
My favorite definition of “art” is not the craft of replicating what exists, but to make something that gets others to view the world how you (the artist) sees things. Love it cause it applies to every creative medium. Even the nerds who say design is not art because it’s about solving problems or communicating ideas. There is still an artistry in those decisions no matter how utilitarian it may seem. Probably bastardizing it, but the gist is there.
Exactly. And AI is unable of abstraction. Problem solving leans heavily on that. If one thinks of design as the purely mechanical process of rendering images, yes, we’re screwed. But it’s not.
art is more than "creating images" there's a lot more to it than that, that's like "just photoshop it". There's tons of "problem solving" in creating images, I mean the composition of a shot, how a piece flows, what colors play off each other.
Graphic design definitely has a basis on creating content though. That barrier to entry is what keeps people from ‘doing it themselves’ or getting their ‘nephew who dabbles’ to create their work.
Unfortunately, design and creative careers have a long running disposition of being easy to do, fun, and not really mattering in The grand scheme of things. This low level of respect leads people to just taking it into their own hands. With ai tools they have an even better chance of coming out with something that looks half decent at the end of the self exploration.
The visual problem solving element often gets forgotten about or goes unnoticed. How often in a design position are your ideas and reasoning thrown out the window because your client wants to make the logo bigger. Or the client doesn’t like the colour blue. Unfortunately graphic design falls into the bike shed effect and always will. Graphic design will become everyone’s responsibility and no ones responsibility at the same time. Those that hang onto the left over jobs will have a tough time covering all aspects of design folded into a single job.
However it’s not all doom and gloom. Some designers will hang onto the role. And they will be highly rewarded for it. As jobs become scarce the field becomes less saturated the ones left will have the potential to reep the rewards. A specialist in the field and potentially a level of respect for going above the usual ai expected level of output.
This is something that has bugged me about the field forever. Graphic design seems to be a catch-all term for anything image related. Photoshop, digital painting, vector drawings in Illustrator, web design, motion graphics, anything even remotely visual done on a computer is lumped into the “graphic design” umbrella, including tons of stuff that used to be their own distinct field like illustration.
But to me “graphic design” means things like layouts in InDesign, desktop publishing, typography, not just creating or sourcing visuals but finding ways to coherently integrate and layer them, understanding of composition and color. And I’m not even particularly good at that, I just this year learned that the thing I have the most experience and familiarity with is apparently production design. I hardly ever get to design my own stuff from scratch and have almost always been tasked with making something that follows an existing style guide or rebuilding things that don’t have the original project files available.
But everything from several different (and not always closely related) disciplines being lumped together under the “graphic design” catch-all has made it really hard to sift through things to find what’s relevant, or to make people who aren’t in the field have realistic expectations of what you are capable of.
I get where you're coming from—there’s definitely value in the traditional foundations of graphic design. But the workplace has evolved for many different lines of work, and to stay relevant, designers have had to evolve with it. In many sectors, print and static layouts have taken a backseat to digital experiences, motion, and interactive content. Some of us want a piece of that pie, because it's the only pie there is.
Like I said, this isn’t unique to design. Almost every profession has seen its roles expand—think of how secretaries have transitioned into administrative professionals juggling scheduling, software, and project coordination. It’s not necessarily about doing the job of four people as some people complain about as if there's only some scheme to reduce designers to doing the work of four people...no, it’s about staying versatile and useful in a changing business landscape.
Designers today need to understand branding across platforms, think in terms of user experience, and communicate through a variety of media. That doesn’t diminish the value of traditional skills—it just adds more tools to the toolkit. Embracing that shift doesn’t mean abandoning the past; it means building on it. We can't afford to be so stringent and conservative with what it means to be a graphic designer.
It’s both? Our program before they renamed it was called “Communication Design.” If it was pretty but didn’t solve the problem we’d get a failing grade.
Artist’s also solve problems. Anyone who’s ever had to do perspective, color theory, abstraction on a piece knows that one… But I get where you’re coming from.
But that isn't some untrainable process I'm sorry to say, though. You see agency after agency putting up the same standard process everywhere and AI has already learned from that. Do they have access to interviewing stakeholders yet? Not really, but it'll figure out how to come up with the right surveys delivered to the right people. Damn, that would be nice to not have to figure out.
I think instead of acting like it isn't inevitable that some of the work that keeps us really busy isn't going to be replaced by this, we should consider how it can help us be a lot better at what we do instead. Because this stuff is coming, no matter how much we pretend it can't replace a good old human conversation and technique. Plenty of creatives and marketing teams have been made redundant by far less impressive things.
They’ll start to care when every thumbnail looks exactly the same and the lazy AI garbage is no longer driving engagement. The thinking now is that AI will pump out a ton of disposable content and thus create value. I think this stuff has an expiration date though and it will be necessary to do more to stand out. The other thing is these AI companies are burning through cash. At some point they’ll have to start charging more to stop blitzscaling and start making a profit. Will the average person pay a subscription cost for it? It’s hard to say but the added cost would change the value proposition, especially if the end product is so generic.
Compare what we had 2 years ago to now. Things won’t just stop here. OpenAI just received billions in another round of funding… this is the beginning for them
I‘m not sure how a scribble with a prompt „make cool“ will end up in a print-ready 60 pages magazine or a 25 pages web prototype, that follows HCI, brand guidelines and stakeholder requirements, but I‘m open to see it.
Might be, but it‘s brand guidelines, accessibility guidelines, norms, standards and all kinds of constraints for print, UX, spatial, motion, etc. That‘s what makes a designer: navigating through this kind of requirements and still producing a viable solution, not just colors and typo. Someone else here stated already, graphic designers find solutions, no matter the tools.
Absolutely. I‘m pointing at the fact, that you are able to determine, if something is right or wrong. No point in manually drawing rounded div boxes, tbh. Designers will be more of consultants than illustrators. And overall, design quality will rise with the use of AI.
Those constraints (brand, accessibility, etc) are all clear directions and guidelines for AI to follow, and important for good output. There’s probably already a decent GPT that asks for all of this before the design conversation. Most non-designers don’t care about having groundbreaking or beautiful design, they just need good enough. Being able to get something good enough — and in less than a minute — is a game-changer.
The nerve of these people thinking that typing some words into a generator makes them artists.
Like, we can have legitimate conversations about the genuine threat we face as designers because of AI, but equating creative work and intellect to typing "make cool" and doing absolutely nothing else annoys the hell out of me.
those same executives if an actual designer made this: <20 minutes of nonstop pointing out/berating said designer that he’s holding the bat the wrong way>
These AI people are fucking delulu and it's going to become more obvious the more they come to rely on it. As an in-house graphic designer, very little of what I do is AESTHETIC. Most of it is TECHNICAL. A lot of it is adapting existing imagery for new contexts.
If you are a small business that needs to post a graphic on Instagram once in a while, OK. If you are working for a BRAND, you need someone who understands the spirit of the brand as well as its specific aspects. If you are designing brochures, price guides, any sort of layout, you need an intuition for how it will be read by humans.
I've read Kurzweil and I'm sure this will be achievable by AI one day, but not until we get to the point where we're debating whether computers are sentient. And that's not today or tomorrow.
It's weird. From what I've seen, a lot of people who are pro-AI gloat about "graphic designers and artists dropping $100k on a useless degree" like it's funny. Theoretically killing an industry is one thing, but do they really have to be dickheads to the workers who would be out of a job?
they're also building their models on the backs of the hard work and dedication of those artists by training off their work for free, and then turning around and very vocally disrespecting the artists they trained from
lol you know what’s worse? What till you see what happens when you feed it a style guild as well as a sketch.✍️
We are testing it out in the office on Monday. Saw a YouTube in which they feed in urls of sites or products they like. Then it builds a 10 page style guild for you.
You then tell it to follow the style guild of your sketch and it will generate content and assets based on that.
Then it while write the html/css for you to use that style guide. Could be hype? But I’m excited to try.
Imagine how much time you could save if your client came to you and said “oh we want a summer edition of X but still in line with the previous campaign.” Just one use case.
The only people that care about graphic design are graphic designers.
Clients, marketing professionals, and the general public simply don’t care enough that something looks AI generated. The fact that Coca Cola used AI to update their Christmas advert should scream volumes to everyone of us. And is a sign of what is to come.
Brands want quickly and cheaply. Graphic designers are an overhead that companies would rather not pay for, mostly because they don’t understand what we contribute to a business, and now they believe we can be replaced.
Graphic designers are an overhead that companies would rather not pay for
Wouldn't this also be true to other careers, to a varying degree? I've heard a similar sentiment on dev circles before, and that paints a concerning picture for me because a lot of more intellectually oriented careers and their contributions to businesses can be hard to grasp for people looking outside in (obviously to varying degrees).
Not that I disagree with what you're saying though, because I agree. It's just that the implications are a lot bigger than threatening the prospects of graphic designers and that's worrisome to me.
It is absolutely true of other sectors. You only need to look around to see that companies and now governments are scaling back their work force dramatically. I expect most of it is an attempt to continually please shareholder profit margins.
With regard to graphic design and AI, I had a very recent conversation with a CEO of a charity who boasted of using AI to do all their creative work to save on the ‘extremely high cost’ of hiring a designer. A small anecdote but a fairly common one as far as I understand
I had a very recent conversation with a CEO of a charity who boasted of using AI to do all their creative work to save on the ‘extremely high cost’ of hiring a designer.
So my thousands of dollars of reduced salary expectation and limited job prospects were a contribution to your charity? I'm so philanthropic! I'll expect to see my name on the supporter's wall, of course.
Welcome to the world under consolidation of wealth. As connections, luck, and disregard for others become the determiner of winners and losers and who remains their hand on the rudders of industry, the pool of people making the decisions drains away to folks who get by mostly on all-purpose business knowledge-- useful, vital even, but not as all-encompassing as they make it out to be-- a Rolodex of friends with bankrolls, and the inertia to succeed in the face of implausibility.
So you've got a bunch of TED-talk intellectuals who think themselves cleverer than they are because everyone diligently listens to them, of course everyone does by default because they're the boss. They're effective because effectiveness is only measured by how much juice comes out of the squeeze right now. Of course, that's appropriate when everyone's playing that game, because any way you come to own the market still means you own the market and can be as shit as you want later on.
Which all adds up to the flailing "cut corners because it's cheaper" being a winning strategy. Quality doesn't matter, because if you're doing it right, you either got rid of all the competitors or everyone who's left is left because they raced down to the same level of mediocrity. Old folks might grumble because they've known better, but it's not like they have other options. Young folks don't know better. It just looks like the way of the world. Soak them in it long enough, and they'll even start to believe the rationale, saying things like "How could a company doing that much business on a shoestring possibly enforce quality?", forgetting that "Don't overextend" was always an option and "Ignore half the job and it's twice as easy" isn't actually innovation.
So we end up, as you point to, with the successful ones being the chop-happy dimwits and quality of everything tanking but that not mattering because there's no better options.
Perfectly said! Most people aren’t nitpicking images and layouts to see if they’re AI, anyways.
However: mediocre graphic designers also produce lots of “blah” work. It’s not like the “all human” era of design created a beautiful world that is now in danger of extinction.
Designers with truly unique visions, who are a pleasure to work with, and can justify their ROÍ will be okay. The ones screaming “BUT I’M HUMAN & THEREFORE SUPERIOR” will not.
To an extent. Now that everyone and their dog is using AI, there's a larger opportunity to stand out and do something better. Design has always needed to be validated, businesses have never inherently respected it, even before AI. You need to sell, same as always.
Pulled from the article you linked, “…we claimed rights in the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the inpainted components of the composite image, but not the individual AI-generated inpainted segments.”
This sentence reinforces my comment; they could not claim copyright on the elements of their piece that were made by AI.
I believe after this with all these low effort AI generated contributions flooding the marketing space, companies and who they affiliate with will want more authentic products. When I see AI social media posts I lose interest, and that’s one less person that will buy into your product
Competitors = as in designers? Only because the job market overall is brutal, and shrinking for designers. There are simply fewer and fewer positions for designers.
I love reading these brain dead takes on Twitter as well and then laughing at their example, which is usually the most obvious AI slop you've ever seen.
You click on their profiles and it's always some AI, crypto, NFT worshipper with no skill to their name.
Designers here are still coping — forgetting that the intelligence will continue to scale rapidly.
This is not the time to shun emerging tech with folded arms and arrogance. We're only a couple years in and designers believe AI has peaked. Thinking this will be the worst mistake of your life.
I'm Team People but many sound like those boomers who doubted the internet itself.
Adapt and learn to collaborate with the tech; or the career you "love" will become a mere hobby.
Just let people like this try it. Ultimately I think n ppl trained in an area can get more out of AI than those that have little knowledge of something. The default answers AI gives you aren’t amazing, especially in design. Eventually the mediocre gets drowned out and the best stuff rises to people’s attention. Ok, a ton of ppl create stuff with AI that floods platforms, only to be ignored again.
Plus you can’t just give vendors AI results and say “manufacture this for me.” What they’ll charge you to make things ready to print or manufacture will get expensive.
Output is absolute trash. These AI slop users are going to be in for a rude awakening in the real world. Clients will crush their AI loving souls. It’s a tool yes, not a replacement to being a graphic designer.
1) I don't believe the thumbnail wasn't created after the fact.
2) Even if it wasn't, I would bet there is a lot in the middle here, as even with advancements I've never had AI nail it on the first go (and it doesn't here, but see 3).
3) Even if it did do this exactly as presented, with the sketch done first and AI nailing it in one go, good luck making any specific tweaks to it via the AI.
For example, as someone else mentioned, the batter was flipped and the ball is no longer coming at the bat but it's a missed swing. It also looks more like the batter is jabbing at the ball rather than swinging, as if the ball is attaching him and he's trying to stab it with the bat (batter's right arm is off for a swing).
4) Even if 3 wasn't an issue, as a hypothetical (since it didn't match the sketch), you can't protect any of this, so someone else could rip off that exact image and you can't do anything about it, you have no claims to the image.
5) People will just move the goal posts to say "well no one cares about any of this" or whatever, except in the past most people have cared enough, and the people who wouldn't care now are likely those that didn't care before. Bad work in a different form.
AI is a tool that should be incorporated as part of a designer's toolbox. For internal departments that rely on a steady stream of content with constant deadlines, AI can be a huge time saver.
I call bullshit. An amateur who draws like that would have no understanding of perspective. They would not make the choice to put trees on the bottom of the composition. Seems like they generated a similar thumbnail and then made a sketch in reverse.
AI will take jobs on the lower half of the spectrum, I would say that the top 10% in every field that is today threatened by AI will become very demanded. If you are very good at what you are doing, you will have more possibilites then ever. The mediocre and low skilled people will have a hard time getting jobs.
As someone who focuses more on the illustrating and physical art and design, I still have hope. I've noticed people pushing against AI because they want the "human" aspect of the design. You do lose that quality with AI, and there are people who recognize that and make the effort to support /real/ people.
I can't predict the future, but. A little hope is better than nothing to me.
Graphic designer learn typography rules, layout rules, colour theory etc as part of the course, graphic designer is not image creator.
Graphic design is a form of visual communication. They provide solution to what clients want by interpreting the information supplied into visual projects for them, think catalogues, posters, marketing flyers, name cards, logo etc to name a few.
From my point of view, AI it doesn’t have that human approach when come to design. In additional, with that generated image posted above about the baseball sport, it could potentially infringed the copyright of that image without knowing.
With AI, you either have to write a near perfect prompt, otherwise, it will generate trash. That is all my personal view.
Maybe this isn’t for us but for kids out there that have their own YouTube channels.
I just got my son a subscription for the month during Easter holidays. He is using it to make comics with his mates and thumbnails for their little YouTube channels.
Prompt engineering is the mother to vibe coding. When it recently entered the software development market, everyone was saying the same old phrase, 'developers are dead'. We sat and watched things evolve to now design. The thing is only the entry-level jobs that will be cut out by AI, probably.
This laziness is truly shameful. If one’s argument for making ai atrocities is that they can not draw and need it to be accessible they should just give up now, people with disabilities have been making art for years without ai. People without hands learn to paint with their damn feet. There is no excuse. None. Except true laziness with these people. AI creations are soulless, boring, and honestly always ugly. Get that damn degree, keep working hard. When the world is full of shit like this people will start to look for real artists again. Ai is not the next step in art, it isn’t a tool, for tools help you in the process of creation, they don’t make the creation itself, ai “artists” simply aren’t a thing because that would be saying that these “artists” actually contributed to the ai image at all. Entering a prompt, wow yes, you are so amazing. Pick up a crayon for once.
The frustrating thing to me is that regulation is key. These tools can exist but they need to be watermarked by default. Don’t get me started on the environmental impacts. We are being failed by the sheer inaction of the powers that be. Look at the debacle in Hollywood where they had to strike over rights usage in AI generated content. Now we have models consenting to AI clones being used in ads. If we don’t wake up, we will advance ourselves out of every creative industry and further destroy the planet in the process just to have fake studio Ghibli art.
Already I go to theoretically hip and happening commerce areas near colleges and universities and I see pretty horrible logos designed by artificial intelligence fricking everywhere.
Regular folk cannot tell the difference and Ai is happy to make whatever shitty concept they come up with REAL so the next 10 years or 20 years are gonna be unbelievably shitty…
" So disrespectful"....what? You act like the world owes you something just because you decided to become a graphic designer. This is just people using something at their disposal. Get a grip.
How many times do I have to say that I use it, too? Jesus, work on your reading comprehension and communication skills. We're supposed to be communicators and you really, really suck at it.
For years 'creativity' has been linked to 'skills' (drawing, painting, computer skills), so now creatives don't like people with no skills being more creative than them thanks to AI. BE CREATIVE AND STOP WHINING! Embrace progress or die...
Yess they are, cause graphic design is problem solving and communication, doesn't matter the tools. They be solving clients problems and getting paid while you complain
Why not do both? I am a graphic designer and I both use it and complain about it, but I understand designers' apprehension about the loss of their livelihoods. There's no need to be condescending about it.
I complain about it because morons who have no idea what graphic designers do use it, too, and they think that they're capable of being a graphic designer because AI will just do our job for them. They're satisfied with mediocrity and the public is also satisfied with mediocrity, so why bother hiring a designer? Go to the ChatGPT sub since the last imaging update and you'll see these jackasses rubbing their hands together with glee that they can get 8/10 work from a free software instead of having to pay an expensive, obnoxious graphic designer for 9/10 work.
McDonald's used it just the other day to make a Ghibli-style ad. Corporations have repeatedly shown that they'll do anything to make more money. I don't have much trust in companies to value the work of someone they have to pay as opposed to something they can use for free.
137
u/TheStormbrewer 1d ago
Pig meet lipstick