Just like all visual generative AI, it gets the first 95% but doesn't get the last 5% that takes 95% of the time. Kerning pairs on typefaces take an incredible

Just like all visual generative AI, it gets the first 95% but doesn't get the last 5% that takes 95% of the time. Kerning pairs on typefaces take an incredible amount of human time. Years of full-time work for a large type family. After all these years, even Adobe can't perfectly automate kerning because making letters look right next to each other isn't (obviously) formulaic. Maybe generative AI will nip it in the bud? Certainly hasn't so far, but maybe it will. Obviously in monospaced fonts, like that last one, kerning isn't an issue. More correctable in these models would be the balance between the letterforms. Surely if there was some kind of prompt you could tell it to not make those Ms in that bold serif font to be obnoxiously wide? Either way, as of now, what this gets us is exactly 90% less useful and probably of lower quality than the stuff you can get for free on dafont.com. I know it will progress, but I imagine the best use case for generative AI and font creation for commercially viable fonts would be to give roughs glyphs to fill out a large character set as an aid for a professional type designer. And surely there will be a chorus of people insisting that it doesn't matter. Well, you're wrong. If you blindly showed people a headline, book, poster or whatever with properly kerned type and then one without, they will see how much more polished the properly kerned page is, even if they couldn't tell you specifically why. In a lot of situations, that really, really matters, even to people who haven't developed the ability to point out the differences.