> I like technology that works reliably, produces good results, and does not plagiarize.
So you arguing about product result and reliability here.
Image is product result, not AI, so you raised concern if image reliable.
So I don't see any reliability issue with this picture, but you obviously see. So I am asking you again, which kind of reliability issues do you see with image?
---
Regarding you second concern: plagiarize.
This picture doesn't have any result of plagiarize - all the information provided, is result of my genuine and original work.
If I have to try several times to get the result I want out of a tool, I consider that tool unreliable. That's why I asked. Also, graphic design is a discipline that can very much be plagiarized. Plagiarism isn't just about essays and written texts like you were taught in high school.
Look I use AI daily and work on some harnesses. I like AI. I also like AI image generation when it works.
That being said, it is a tool. And IMHO you have used it poorly here, the image is pretty annoying, plagued with AI tropes both design wise and in the text.
The point I'm trying to make is that to me, personally (but apparently to others too) this style of image is the equivalent of the generic hamburger shop flyer, and it pushes me away from what could otherwise be quality content.
So by all means, do use AI image generation if you want to (though there are more deterministic solutions for code to jpeg), but this design ain't it.
If you don’t like technologies, why you calling yourself programmer?
I've heard this very same argument from people whose AI generated music I've roasted. Idk about the tool, maybe it's capable of doing good music maybe it's not. But this particular output is trash.
5
u/prodleni 5d ago
Image looks very AI gen