Monitors with screens on both sides. Such a brilliant idea! Imagine the cost savings for companies putting hundreds of people on rows and opposite each other.
There will always be a bias towards some default settings in whatever popular tool, because people who aren't very discerning or dedicated will just punch in a few common ideas into the tool and take the first thing that looks good enough to them.
But people on the outside will continue to have an instinctive sense for these default style biases and be able to tell pretty well that an image was produced that way.
The escape hatch will be what amounts to AI stock photo industry, where practiced "AI Art" designers prepare images that are more subtle and unique and sell them pretty cheaply.
The technology surely can be pushed to the point where a well-crafted image is virtually indistinguishable, but most people are going to just drop "anxious woman at keyboard" or "happy dog with a ball" and there's only so much unique information contained in those prompts so defaults will always reign.
> There will always be a bias towards some default settings in whatever popular tool, because people who aren't very discerning or dedicated will just punch in a few common ideas into the tool and take the first thing that looks good enough to them.
How is that different from the established practice of using stock photos?
And most people see stock photos on a blog and see that a bit negatively too. If the ceiling here is stock photos, that's not great, but the issue is that the state of the art is "stock photo but with glaring weirdness"
No need to go back in time. People say that about CGI in movies today. Studios lie about CGI, and even alter BTS footage. Directors are under NDA. Actors are clueless. Everyone says everything is real to appeal to the CGI bad crowd. Media outlets hype the new practically shot movie. After a few weeks or months after the release, the VFX studios behind the movie show off their work. Turns out it was CGI all along, but nobody cares at that point.
To be fair, a lot of folks who dislike modern CGI dislike it because it's often used poorly and hamhandedly. Would it maybe look better if they did it practically? Possibly, but a lot of the revulsion to it is based on seeing real movies that looked really bad because they did CGI as a shortcut around shooting a movie in the city they say it's set in, or clearly working around having an actor just shoot in an empty room and add other characters in later with no real interaction between them.
If you do something poorly, it reflects poorly on the results. If it becomes endemic to do something cheaply and poorly, people will think that method is indicative of cheapness and laziness. It doesn't negate that it may be possible to do it well, but you can't just chide everyone for seeing the trend and reacting to it.
It seems we're approaching this from different angles. My concern is that the general public often doesn't realize how impressive CGI can be when done well. This lack of awareness fuels a negative attitude, allowing studios to underpay VFX artists and enabling the Oscars to consistently disrespect the entire VFX industry. A prime example of this disrespect was when they interrupted VFX artists' acceptance speeches with a cocaine joke, instead of letting them thank their families.
