The problem with all AI assessments is they become obsolete in a few weeks to few months. How AI is being used will change rapidly as this is not a technology that is static, but rapidly evolving. As AI gets better and better, the temptation to let it do everything increases.
its clear AI is a deep state product. Look what it can do now and dont tell me it all cant be used for military goals like modding images and translate txt etc
My reaction to generative AI would be: what is it good for if anything that it creates is not able to be copyrighted and also becomes public domain when such work is created? Sure, it can create interesting and sometimes wonderfully creative imagery, but beyond that how can it be used in actual business and graphical communication? I understand the idea of using generative AI to produce iterative versions of conceptual ideas that a human team or individual designer may have come up with, but exposing those ideas and concepts to generative AI risks consigning those ideas to the public at large, does it not? The legal aspects of using generative AI needs to have better legal footing before I end up using it to any great degree. Don’t get me wrong….I think the concept of generative AI is exciting and perhaps bodes well for a creative future, and I have no problem with using specific AI features within applications such as generative fill, object removal, sky replacement, and the like. Those capabilities are very desirable and helpful. But generative AI, where entire images are produced by machine with no human work involved, currently enjoys no protection from copyright law. If someone is going to use gen AI, then they will either need to consign it to being used as an ideation device during the creative process ….with the final version being human-produced….or they run the risk of providing a client with design that cannot be protected and can thus be used by anyone else out there with no legal recourse available. We are currently living through the Wild West of AI and Graphic Design! It will be very interesting to see where it all ends up.
Yeah you got that right, I completely despise AI and only force myself to learn about it not to fall too much behind and be able to have this discussion. But the whole thing is a huge disservice to the whole field because it is robbing designers the real need to go through all the trials and tribulations of the artistic struggle and keep practicing their fundamental skills, which is as much, if not more, about detailed observation as it is about production. Current gen designers can most likely adapt just fine without losing what they already know, but it's gonna absolutely wreak havoc on future designers and the field as a whole.
I think AI is here to stay, so we should start learning more and more about this, but at the same time, we can't live in fear that it will steal our jobs because if we think this way, then we automatically will realise it's not just us, but everyone will get affected by it. Eventually, there will be some regulations to operate it, but we better increase our knowledge about AI and its tools so we can start seeing it as a helper.
This may be more of a problem with you than others, as it shows your inability to predict the future and short-sightedness. One day you will personally understand why people had a problem with this.
Been a graphic designer / illustrator since 2000. Lots of skill and experience - plenty to learn still. Am 43 now. Will AI whoop me and take my career away? No one knows and its partly up to me I suppose. I just want to know if I need to go be a welder or plumber while I can still pull off that kind of work.
The industry should relax a little. Too many stiff projections about the course of something average consumers don't have the attention span for, let a lone the technical eye to critique (absent of anomalies and poor rendering quality). I perceive the entities who will care about whether a design is AI infused, influenced, or fully-composited will be top level designers sizing up increasing, yet inconsistent competition; and that interest will dissolve slowly as the lines become more blurred. Example: Satori Graphics + AI = I bet you can't prove the Professional Designer to AI Ratio.... Seriously.
A major externality that will impact on the use of generative AI is the potential legal obligation to clearly label AI Generated content as being fake- and I use the emotive word 'fake' here intentionly to make the point. How will the public in general react to content that is clearly stated to be artificial? There is a paradox here in that much of the potential value of AI is it's ability to generate images in the style of photography- but these images are not photographs. So deception is implicit in the use of these tools because using AI to create images that look like photographs but are not in fact photographs is inherently dishonest- but the apparent solution-clearly labeling the images as fake does not really resolve this because such a label will alter the relationship between the image and it's intended target. As an analogy imagine that the national gallery in london decides to protect it's precious paintings from damaging UV light by storing them all in a dark warehouse and replacing them with high quality prints that only an expert could really distinguish from the real thing. Objectively, then- if the average visitor cannot tell the difference between the original artworks and the fakes that replaced them-does this mean that those visitors are having the same subjective experience? The answer is yes and no. If they are not told that the art on the walls is fake then their experience is the same. However, if they know that they are now looking at fake paintings this intellectual knowledge radically alters their relationship to the art they are looking at. The same may be true of fake photography in advertising- the knowledge that the images one is looking at are fake may undermine the very message that the image was created to convey. After all, in the case of generative AI the use of a 'photographic' style is a deliberate choice rather than an inherent feature of the tools being used. AI can, after all, generate images in many different styles. So the question that anyone using AI to create images styled to look like photographs must answer is why? Why of all the possible styles you could have used when making that image did you choose to make it look like a photograph? It's a deceptively simple question, but the implications of that question are quite profound- not least because the primary reason to use photographic styling is to lay claim to an authenticity that is in fact not present.
I want to remain creative. That's how I see it -- it is a muscle. It'll be a sad day if we sit down to generate our own ideas and nothing comes to mind, so we go to ask A.I.
Hey yo satori i am watching your playlist and now i am going to start the graphic design as a side hustle caise i am a student I have a question which is the best website to do graphic design and how to get client😅 And i just want to do 1-2 clients a day because of studies so is that okay please reply i am big fan ❤😊
The problem with all AI assessments is they become obsolete in a few weeks to few months.
How AI is being used will change rapidly as this is not a technology that is static, but rapidly evolving.
As AI gets better and better, the temptation to let it do everything increases.
its clear AI is a deep state product. Look what it can do now and dont tell me it all cant be used for military goals like modding images and translate txt etc
True enough yeah
My reaction to generative AI would be: what is it good for if anything that it creates is not able to be copyrighted and also becomes public domain when such work is created? Sure, it can create interesting and sometimes wonderfully creative imagery, but beyond that how can it be used in actual business and graphical communication?
I understand the idea of using generative AI to produce iterative versions of conceptual ideas that a human team or individual designer may have come up with, but exposing those ideas and concepts to generative AI risks consigning those ideas to the public at large, does it not?
The legal aspects of using generative AI needs to have better legal footing before I end up using it to any great degree.
Don’t get me wrong….I think the concept of generative AI is exciting and perhaps bodes well for a creative future, and I have no problem with using specific AI features within applications such as generative fill, object removal, sky replacement, and the like. Those capabilities are very desirable and helpful.
But generative AI, where entire images are produced by machine with no human work involved, currently enjoys no protection from copyright law. If someone is going to use gen AI, then they will either need to consign it to being used as an ideation device during the creative process ….with the final version being human-produced….or they run the risk of providing a client with design that cannot be protected and can thus be used by anyone else out there with no legal recourse available.
We are currently living through the Wild West of AI and Graphic Design! It will be very interesting to see where it all ends up.
If you're not paying attention and learning how to leverage AI you will be out of a job.
Most likely eventually
Yeah you got that right, I completely despise AI and only force myself to learn about it not to fall too much behind and be able to have this discussion. But the whole thing is a huge disservice to the whole field because it is robbing designers the real need to go through all the trials and tribulations of the artistic struggle and keep practicing their fundamental skills, which is as much, if not more, about detailed observation as it is about production. Current gen designers can most likely adapt just fine without losing what they already know, but it's gonna absolutely wreak havoc on future designers and the field as a whole.
Thanks for your insight 👍🏻
I think AI is here to stay, so we should start learning more and more about this, but at the same time, we can't live in fear that it will steal our jobs because if we think this way, then we automatically will realise it's not just us, but everyone will get affected by it. Eventually, there will be some regulations to operate it, but we better increase our knowledge about AI and its tools so we can start seeing it as a helper.
I wonder why people fear at all. Ever since chatGpt got released, I have never been more productive.
It’s more complicated than that. I already know several people that lost their job Because ai is faster and cheaper.
This may be more of a problem with you than others, as it shows your inability to predict the future and short-sightedness. One day you will personally understand why people had a problem with this.
ChtGPT generates press releases for mr. Wu too, no wonder its confusing
That's what I thought since he went over that in the previous article 😂
Been a graphic designer / illustrator since 2000. Lots of skill and experience - plenty to learn still. Am 43 now.
Will AI whoop me and take my career away? No one knows and its partly up to me I suppose.
I just want to know if I need to go be a welder or plumber while I can still pull off that kind of work.
The industry should relax a little. Too many stiff projections about the course of something average consumers don't have the attention span for, let a lone the technical eye to critique (absent of anomalies and poor rendering quality). I perceive the entities who will care about whether a design is AI infused, influenced, or fully-composited will be top level designers sizing up increasing, yet inconsistent competition; and that interest will dissolve slowly as the lines become more blurred. Example: Satori Graphics + AI = I bet you can't prove the Professional Designer to AI Ratio.... Seriously.
Skillshare lacks of 3d tutorials and generally other stuff,I am a bit disappointed registering
can u make a video on figma and if its good for design?
Figma is industry standard alongside adobe suite (the'ye both the same company now) deepending on what you're designing.
Amazing video like always !!🩷
You're the best thanks
First comment (like mat karna) ❤
second though bro :P
❤
👍🏻👍🏻
A major externality that will impact on the use of generative AI is the potential legal obligation to clearly label AI Generated content as being fake- and I use the emotive word 'fake' here intentionly to make the point. How will the public in general react to content that is clearly stated to be artificial? There is a paradox here in that much of the potential value of AI is it's ability to generate images in the style of photography- but these images are not photographs. So deception is implicit in the use of these tools because using AI to create images that look like photographs but are not in fact photographs is inherently dishonest- but the apparent solution-clearly labeling the images as fake does not really resolve this because such a label will alter the relationship between the image and it's intended target.
As an analogy imagine that the national gallery in london decides to protect it's precious paintings from damaging UV light by storing them all in a dark warehouse and replacing them with high quality prints that only an expert could really distinguish from the real thing. Objectively, then- if the average visitor cannot tell the difference between the original artworks and the fakes that replaced them-does this mean that those visitors are having the same subjective experience?
The answer is yes and no. If they are not told that the art on the walls is fake then their experience is the same. However, if they know that they are now looking at fake paintings this intellectual knowledge radically alters their relationship to the art they are looking at. The same may be true of fake photography in advertising- the knowledge that the images one is looking at are fake may undermine the very message that the image was created to convey. After all, in the case of generative AI the use of a 'photographic' style is a deliberate choice rather than an inherent feature of the tools being used. AI can, after all, generate images in many different styles.
So the question that anyone using AI to create images styled to look like photographs must answer is why? Why of all the possible styles you could have used when making that image did you choose to make it look like a photograph? It's a deceptively simple question, but the implications of that question are quite profound- not least because the primary reason to use photographic styling is to lay claim to an authenticity that is in fact not present.
I am new to graphic design.. and I post my work on Instagram to show the world.. any quick tips to increase my reach..? 🙃
your phone case looks exactly like my grandpa's
😅😅😅
I want to remain creative. That's how I see it -- it is a muscle. It'll be a sad day if we sit down to generate our own ideas and nothing comes to mind, so we go to ask A.I.
Great very informative
Glad it was helpful!
🫡
👍🏻👍🏻
Let's go
👀 👍
Nice champ
first to you today 🏅
Thank you
Thank you 🌹
Welcome!
Hey yo satori i am watching your playlist and now i am going to start the graphic design as a side hustle caise i am a student
I have a question which is the best website to do graphic design and how to get client😅
And i just want to do 1-2 clients a day because of studies so is that okay please reply i am big fan ❤😊
like for learn in hindi by satori graphics