"Normaize This Reaction" (Art by Cellspex)

AI would give you the finger if it could draw one.

I mean, this is actually the reaction that it gets. Llms are being sold to everybody because they look kinda like they could maybe be useful for a bunch of things, then it turns out they're actually worse that a good 1st week junior at all of them, so the only people who buy in are those so divorced from the front that they just have no idea (which necessitates that either they don't listen to their peeps, of they have some real grifters in their advisory ranks) or people who never intended on actually making a product (to be clear, this is worse. Carelessness and indirect grift is bad. Direct gift is worse)

I was traveling, and this one city I was going through had SD images everywhere as advertising for their downtown, and the quote was "celebrate what's real". They had the audacity to use AI images and tell me to celebrate what's real. Wtf

Edit: needless to say, I did not go to their downtown.

The one and only time I've done consulting for a pharmaceutical company, I was presented with an AI generated ad for a drug. They kept asking what I liked about the image and the only acceptable response was how are you all finding ways to make medicine more impersonable than it already is

Hey, if you don't have much of a budget that's fine. What AI indicates is that your thing is either too shitty to photograph, or that you don't much care what it looks like.

Toupee fallacy.

This has been my reaction for a while now. And usually, I feel like it does tend to accurately represent the thought put into a product.

When a company barely thinks about their marketing material, (the thing they often require to even make their thing seem like a purchase you "need" in the first place) and just assumes that "AI cool therefore AI good" when making their ad, then yeah, I'm going to be highly skeptical of the thought they put into their actual product.

The only time it wouldn't raise red flags for me is when it's used in more of a, I guess you could call it a transitional manner. Like in Coca Cola's "Masterpiece" ad where they mostly just used it to make the transitions between relatively different scenes look a little more natural, but it was only used for a few frames each time, rather than comprising the vast majority of the promotional material itself.

That ad required many actual talented human artists, and would not have been even physically possible with AI alone, so it evokes a different reaction in my opinion.

Of course, then Coca Cola marketing execs released their complete stock footage-looking AI slop ad a bit later, so it doesn't seem like that's a trend that'll hold up.

If it looks like trash then kiss my ass

Yupp. Videos like these fit that pretty well. Unfortunate decision, since the toothbat is really useful.

I mean, even the crappiest advertising literally makes Big Tech trillions of dollars, so unfortunately I don’t think is reality.

Pro tip you don’t actually have to normalize this reaction because high effort media will always stand apart from low effort media, regardless of how it was created. My problem with “normalizing this reaction” is because I literally know dozens of artists who have been falsely accused of using AI generated imagery when they literally just are surrealist photo collagists and idiots automatically think that anything in that style is AI and harass actual artists for their actual work that they made with their actual hands

Actually the more a company spends on advertising the more it's going to be a cheap scammy product. Have you ever bought anything off TV? I don't recommend it. $29 minimum for things that should be in a $5 misc bin at Walmart. Why? You are paying for their marketing.

I mean it IS normalized. They don't care to put effort into marketing and proper product representation. What does that speak about them, as a company?

Hard to differentiate

Better to assume they are cheaping out on the product or overcharging you if they can afford to advertise