"Normaize This Reaction" (Art by Cellspex)

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.

People here would definitely feel that way.

70% of human beings? They buying the ai shit.

If it looks like trash then kiss my ass

Hard to differentiate

Better to assume they are cheaping out on the product or overcharging you if they can afford to advertise

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.

I mean, even the crappiest advertising literally makes Big Tech trillions of dollars, so unfortunately I don’t think is reality.

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.

This has been my reaction for a while now. And usually, I feel like it does tend to accurately represent the thought put into a product.

When a company barely thinks about their marketing material, (the thing they often require to even make their thing seem like a purchase you "need" in the first place) and just assumes that "AI cool therefore AI good" when making their ad, then yeah, I'm going to be highly skeptical of the thought they put into their actual product.

The only time it wouldn't raise red flags for me is when it's used in more of a, I guess you could call it a transitional manner. Like in Coca Cola's "Masterpiece" ad where they mostly just used it to make the transitions between relatively different scenes look a little more natural, but it was only used for a few frames each time, rather than comprising the vast majority of the promotional material itself.

That ad required many actual talented human artists, and would not have been even physically possible with AI alone, so it evokes a different reaction in my opinion.

Of course, then Coca Cola marketing execs released their complete stock footage-looking AI slop ad a bit later, so it doesn't seem like that's a trend that'll hold up.

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.

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?