• Squorlple@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    As if the average consumer thinks about advertisements to any degree of depth

    Edit: also, the artist forgot to color the front part of the advertisee’s shirt. Ironic.

  • MagnyusG@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    5 days ago

    especially considering Coca Cola is one of the richest companies on the planet, they could afford literally whatever artist they want, and yet they choose AI slop, because it’s “cheaper.”

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    You don’t need AI to generate hack art. Corporate Memphis aesthetic has been around for ages precisely because its cheap, hacky clip-art you can apply to ad copy in order to give it a hint of life without spending much money.

    These AI models make the new art comparatively dirt cheap (if you ignore all the negative external costs) without relying on the even more cheap and bland techniques of the past. It’s absolutely “better” relative to what’s come before.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    This isn’t AI, but I have discovered now that I am back in the job market that companies are realizing that “they watch any shit on YouTube, we don’t need people who know how to shoot and edit video. Carstairs, you have an iPhone. Go download some free software and shoot the commercial” doesn’t work very well when it comes to advertising.

    So I think there might be hope for visual artists as well.