111–120 of 386 posts
1. “ghidra dragon, logo, digital art, drawing, in a dark circle as the background, logo, digital art, drawing, in a dark circle as the background” [1] https://labs.openai.com/s/x2UP0MEmj2qNnKWTbko8rrso 2. “cute baby dragon, logo, digital art, in a dark circle as the background” [2] https://labs.openai.com/s/JmOXAqjpR2ctmraDxEkB7twF Thanks for this post, it helped me tailor my own search queries. Because of your post,…
Not sure if this will be considered off topic, my apologies if so. The article says that octopi is the plural of octopus, but it's actually octopuses. Octopus is originally Greek, not Latin and thus does not get the Latin plural -i, but instead would get the Greek plural -odes. Since it ends in a way English can deal with, the commonly accepted usage is octopuses (English) over octopodes (Greek) with octopi being the…
While “octopi” has become popular in modern usage, it’s wrong.
I used to be a stickler for correct vocabulary usage and then I saw a documentary about dictionaries (can't remember what it was) and someone from OED said basically this (from https://www.oed.com/public/oed3guide/guide-to-the-third-edit...):
The Oxford English Dictionary is not an arbiter of proper usage, despite its widespread reputation to the contrary. The Dictionary is intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, its content should be viewed as an objective reflection of English language usage, not a subjective collection of usage ‘dos’ and ‘don'ts’. However, it does include information on which usages are, or have been, popularly regarded as ‘incorrect’. The Dictionary aims to cover the full spectrum of English language usage, from formal to slang, as it has evolved over time.
(edited for formatting)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagree. Just allow one or two more iterations and it will supersede human abilities. Think ahead. Tech progress won't stop.
The tech will get better, but ultimately there still has to be a human who decides 'that's the one that looks good', which strongly depends on someone's taste and skill in identifying what a good image looks like. There will probably be less need for designers of 'lower quality' simple images though.
If dale decides what we see, it might become what the next generation likes and considers “good taste”.
This blog post proves that Dall-E 2 will not make human taste and design ability obsolete. The final image he ended up with is a lot uglier and more complicated than most of the intermediate steps. I think generative art AIs will have a similar effect on design as compilers have on software development, and will not put artists out of a job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. At the end of the article I also described a bit how I would see the evolution of such a tool, and it looks like we're thinking very similarly. --- Though I think the real breakthrough will come when Dall-e gets 10-100x cheaper (and faster). I would then envision the following process of working with it (which is really just an optimization on top of what I’ve been doing now): 1. You write a phrase. 2. You ar…
I see this happening in all areas. Everything would be prompt-driven. Do you like this? What about this? You simply nod or reject the solutions that you don't want. Pretty soon somebody's expertise and experience is not going to be enough to continue paying them what they used to get before this magic blackbox appeared. One day enterprises will realize they can just outsource that expert who's been reduced to simply…
With all respect possible, you generated something that a professional will create for 20 minutes on a napkin (in the context of logo idea). Maybe your perception of "logo" needs more reference points. For example, this gallery of classics in Brand Identity will be a good starting point(use the triangles on top to navigate): https://www.joefino.com/logos_html/L01_Xpand.html There is no doubt in my mind that the next…
> With all respect possible, you generated something that a professional will create for 20 minutes on a napkin (in the context of logo idea). I feel like I understand where you're coming from, but often the phrase I hear by experts (I even use this myself in my space) is, "Sure, it only took 20 minutes to do this wiring/write this code/draw this logo, but it took 5 years to know what to make." Sure, the results aren…
This is exactly my point. With repetition and solid design foundation comes the intuition what is the right direction towards the accomplishing of the given task.
Some will say the design is a subjective, I would argue that designers' role is to move towards objectivity and away from the idea of "personal taste".
That's why I give a link to the works of the master in this craft. This is exactly the same argument with the Copilot case. Is it capable to give some "boilerplate" solution - yes. Is this solution mediocre at best - yes.
If you needed to play so much with words, then it will eventually become a specialized task killing any benefit of having the AI doing the work for you since we eventually we will need to resort to specialists to use the AI to get the result we expect. On the bright side the result may be better, it may be easier to become and "AI usage specialist" than specializing in many different areas, the result may include man…
Create a logo generator site, allow users to pick something very limited like industry/field from a dropdown or something, generate say 9 logos with AI generated text discriptions that fit this selection and remember which one the user picked and use that data to build a network that generates good text descriptions to feed into DALL-E 2 based on a singe item selected by the user.
Not sure if this will be considered off topic, my apologies if so. The article says that octopi is the plural of octopus, but it's actually octopuses. Octopus is originally Greek, not Latin and thus does not get the Latin plural -i, but instead would get the Greek plural -odes. Since it ends in a way English can deal with, the commonly accepted usage is octopuses (English) over octopodes (Greek) with octopi being the…
I’m fascinated by how much this is exactly like working with a human artist who doesn’t really understand the domain that you are wanting to represent with an image. Iterate, iterate, iterate. It seems like the most valuable thing this could do is get some of that early exploration out of the way faster and easier than a human can do it, get to two or three concepts that feel like they’re in the neighborhood, and the…
Agreed. At the end of the article I also described a bit how I would see the evolution of such a tool, and it looks like we're thinking very similarly. --- Though I think the real breakthrough will come when Dall-e gets 10-100x cheaper (and faster). I would then envision the following process of working with it (which is really just an optimization on top of what I’ve been doing now): 1. You write a phrase. 2. You ar…
This blog post proves that Dall-E 2 will not make human taste and design ability obsolete. The final image he ended up with is a lot uglier and more complicated than most of the intermediate steps. I think generative art AIs will have a similar effect on design as compilers have on software development, and will not put artists out of a job.
I was thinking something similar. The editing process is still a human one, and I agree that the one chosen was weaker than a lot of the intermediate choices. It's a matter of taste, obviously, but to me the red ball with a nondescript sketched square around it feels unfinished. The yellow cartoony logos look more finished and professional to me.
I'll keep it mind, as I might still end up choosing a different one.
The chosen one is closer to my original vision, but you do have a point that the yellow ones look more polished.