3 ms·

I disagree, this is actually a great use case for generative AI. There are many people who are great at writing, coding, hacking, or other talents, but are ter

• fatbird 2y ago
  I understand, but you should understand that OP's response will be common to your use of AI graphics: it'll be an indicator of little thought or quality control put into it.
  • _mlbt 2y ago
    As an independent developer or author, every bit of time or money put into superficial things like a book cover is time or money that isn’t used for the content itself.
    • otde 2y ago
      which begs the question: why spend any time at all including an ai image as part of the cover if it’s a negative signal for some people?
    • wk_end 2y ago
      A comment like this makes a lot of subtle assumptions. That there's a fixed budget of time/money - exactly X hours/dollars will be allocated to the book, one way or another. That the improvement to the quality of the content as time/money is invested is something approaching linear - that if exactly X hours/dollars are going to be allocated to the book, the content will be appreciably better if, say, 0.9X is allocated to the content vs, say, 0.8X. That time and money is fungible: that all time/money that could be invested in the content could be invested in superficial things, and the other way around.
      • FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        "That there's a fixed budget of time/money" As independent developer. Yes, time is fixed. There is only 24 hours in a day.
    • nkrisc 2y ago
      A pleasant color and a pleasing font good a long way. You can spend very little time and no money.
    • fatbird 2y ago
      You have direct evidence above that the book cover is not a superficial thing. If you don't take this into account, then you're not a serious author.
• nkrisc 2y ago
  No image is better than an AI image. It’s demeaning to your work.
• epidemian 2y ago
  Yeah, i agree that, on principle, generative AI should be a good got for these kinds of things. But, the results are... idk, uncanny. At least to me. For example, if you were to ask a human artist to draw this image with two crabs, and this artist didn't know how many legs crabs have, what would they do? I think they'd probably google how many legs crabs have, and how they look in general, and at the very least draw two crabs with the same amount of legs. But these generative models don't know how many legs crabs have, and they are not clever enough to ask, or even count it seems. So you end up with results like these. The main crab has 8 legs (6 + 2 claws), while the little one seemingly has 10 (or at least it has 5 on one side), and it's also missing an eye for some reason. A human artist can also make mistakes, for sure. But i don't think these kind of mistakes would be expected from an artist. And i agree with the other commenters that said this reflects poorly on the author of the book. Didn't they care to check the cover for obvious mistakes? Attention to detail is a very important trait on a technical writer.
• xorcist 2y ago
  Stock art exists. Still may require some taste in editor, but it's hard to do worse than bad AI art.