Hacker News Reader

Comment by alerighi | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

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.

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

> 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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com