'>>453557
Since the prompt was "Bill Cosby playing tennis", probably not very.';

'>>453558
Denial is the first step of the grieving process.';

'>>453557
you should probably ask /ic/ or /co/ since this isn't an illustration board';

'which program did you use';

'>>453565
Which is why your first reaction to the truth is denial.

Now get mad.';

'>>453557
She has two left hands.';

'>>453557
you didnt make anything

>>453569
and you dont know shit about thumbs';

'>>453580
youre seriously doubling down on this?
she has two left hands, dumbass.
1:I know how to draw hands
2:you dont have to know how to draw hands to see she has two left hands.

You have two failures, retard.';

'>>453580
LMAO, now do this guy's...hand?';

'>>453557
that's not Graphic Design
Goobers like you will never replace practitioners';

'>>453557
>I have zero technical skill and zero artistic training
That explain why you posted this with such confidence even when her right hand is all messed up and guys in the back are drawn by 4th grader';

'>>453557
>illustration
>graphic design
pajeet didn't think even a second before making a bait thread, literally negative IQ';

'>>453557
it's been over for like 99% of artists from the second they chose to pursue art as a career, not to discount the impact of AI art though';

'if I can hijack this troll -
approaching from another perspective, how near is AI currently to replacing 'classic' /gd/ tasks, ie, feed it a bunch of adverts and requesting it produce similar?';

'>>453583
>youre seriously doubling down on this?
soijack.webm';

'yea that explains why it looks like fucking dogwater';

'>>453557
It looks unbelievably bad. It's not over for any of us for all eternity. AI will never artistically overtake humans';

'>>453557
Looks like shit. How nodded off on fentanyl do you have to be to not see the fucked up details in ai images?';

'>all ai images have fucked up details
explain this, then';

'>>453557
this is a graphic design board. How about you use the AI to generate something to incorporate into a graphic design project and create something original instead of posting just another shitty AI picture absolutely nobody cares about';

'>People keep using these programs to churn out more and more of these AI generated quote/unquote "artworks," the majority of which all look exactly the same and are mostly only meant to tickle whatever might be that individual's lurid and perverse fancy, but more than that, some of these people are acting like this is normal. They're acting like it's somehow ordinary and even righteous that artwork, be it pictures, writing, or any other form, something which is supposed to be a product of the creator's hard work and effort because they wanted to say something with this art, is fine to be manufactured in seconds by a computer program';

'>>453718
>supposed to be a product of the creator's hard work and effort

By what authority do you make this claim that anyone is "supposed" to do anything creative in any particular way?';

'A.I is just going to speed run a bunch of idea guys to failure. They'll get to see their ideas aren't million dollar ideas and stop wasting everyone else time.
Graphic design takes a lot of research on what people will actually respond too, the only thing idea guys will be able to monopolize on is tits and ass.';

'>>453725
honestly an interesting take i tend to agree with';

'>>453725
Not untrue, but perhaps a different reality than one might imagine when you consider that in many GD job scenarios its the clients who consider themselves the idea guys and think that the designers job is to make those ideas workable even when they are stupid.

This often wastes the designers time in creating visuals that are doomed to be rejected when the client has to face how fucking stupid they are and realize that he really doesn't know what he wants.

Automating that process can save designers lots of time and frustration whether they do those mockups using AI, or if the client uses it to generate rough ideas based on (often nebulous and contradictory) "here's what I want" prompts given to a machine rather than to the artist over several interminable meetings.';

'>>453725
>>453718
>>453739
In the world of AI, it's not "AI vs Designer" but "Designer with AI vs Designer with AI". Any company that decides "Yes, we will use AI for our designs and not hire a designer" are shortsighted. They will just produce the same "electrifying" design that everyone else. People don't have the attention span to consume literal garbage. I wouldn't be surprised if social media platforms and Google will clamp down on it, as most companies that are using AI now are essentially "copy paste" spamming the same sentence structures over and over.

AI is great for placeholder or for tasks where the money wasn't available in the first place. No one would have paid for the pic in OP >>453557 $500 to $1500 if it was only going to be used on social media. Or maybe a picture on someone's desk in a massive video game.';

'Why is this banner so oldfaggy?';

'>>453741

With all due respect, you sound like you have zero experience with how real world businesses actually deal with graphic design needs-

>Any company that decides "Yes, we will use AI for our designs and not hire a designer" are shortsighted.

Companies use even less capable/ qualified people like a sectetary or the bosses wife or kid to do GD work all the time and don't suffer for it nearly as much or as often as designers would like to believe they do.

>They will just produce the same "electrifying" design that everyone else.

Kind of like how when people here have no clue where to start designing a logo or other content they are invariably told to look at what other companies in the same field do and not deviate too far from what consumers might expect because it can defeat the entire purpose of a logo or ad addressing that market.

>People don't have the attention span to consume literal garbage.

Utter nonsense; nuance and depth and complexity and quality drive people with no attention span away.

>AI is great for placeholder or for tasks where the money wasn't available in the first place.

Marketing/ advertising is one of the most potentially expensive outlays any business that wants to grow or just maintain market share faces, and those budgets are ALWAYS being eyed for cuts both because they are so big to begin with and a little cut doesn't seem like much, and because it is often difficult (and expensive) to determine any reliable correlation between those outlets and revenues.

There's NEVER enough money to fund every marketing/advertising idea that might raise the bottom line, and there's ALWAYS pressure to lower the ratios of those costs to revenues by just cutting the ad budget and seeing what happens.

In many cases its a decent strategy because even if it loses revenue that can happen after spending out the ass for designers and market analysis too and you are worse off. There's no guarantees.

1/2';

'>>453746
2/2

Saying "let's cut out the cost of designers and still have AI art/design resources to use if we want" is an even less risky strategy than that, and extremely attractive because of it. People with good design sense will still be an important part of making it work consistently, but they can work in house and streamline the process and make it less dependent on outside agencies and freelancers.

It's no different than when companies gained an advantage by using in house talent to do GD that other companies paid out the ass for...if the boss's wife's logo did the job, it did the job, and the competitors who scoffed and pointed and sneered because they didn't use some big prestige agency as if that guaranteed better results were the shortsighted ones.';

'>>453746
>With all due respect, you sound like you have zero experience with how real world businesses actually deal with graphic design needs-
I was talking about high-quality graphic design not graphic design where you're paid $15/hour. "Wife or kid" makes the logo makes it sound like you're talking about a random bakery or something. I'm sure your local airport, USPS, Microsoft, IKEA, Timex, Coinbase, etc. will outsource things to AI. Yup.';

'>>453743
dont talk shit about this banner';

'>>453748
> your local airport, USPS, Microsoft, IKEA, Timex, Coinbase

Thanks for confirming that you are speaking about GD work that you have no personal experience with whatsoever.

>will outsource things to AI.

Thanks also for confirming that you have zero reading comprehension skills and don't even know what "outsource" means.

There's nothing about picrel that a mildly intelligent person couldn't compose in house on a desktop PC, and nothing about it that would cause a reasonable potential user/ customer to avoid it based on it somehow conveying a sense of unprofessionalism or other red flags...it's boring, but boring works in the context of financial services.
It's exactly the kind of GD that proves the point that designers tend to be up their own asses when it comes to assessing their own value and necessity for using them at all.

Finally, even if they were dumb enough to pay an exorbitant amount for their logo, if you think the real grunt work at the agency wasn't done by low wage peons throwing shit against the wall and then when something stuck polished some more by low wage grunts and only then handed over by the suits who get all the credit and big money, you're even more ignorant than it would seem at first glance.';

'>>453767
Now show the entire branding package and the hundreds of collateral assets that went along with the logo. Idiot.';

'>>453767
And let's not forget Coinbase has its own typeface called "Coinbase Sans" with multiple weights and worldwide language support. You're a double idiot.';

'>>453557
The problem with comparing AI-generated images and human art together is that there is a lot of control you don't really have when it comes to AI generated outputs. If you try to create new images of her in a new setting, like an exterior setting, or a new pose, is it possible for you to retain that exact same woman in that exact same outfit holding that exact same dagger?';