Imagine the printing costs of putting variations of the right on all your products? Just the color variety alone would add to the production costs.
I’mma be honest: I compared the two logos before reading anything, and absolutely loved the one on the left. It made me instantly want to learn more about the company. The one on the right just looks like a low effort depiction of the inside of a house, and I lost interest in what it was offering before I even got to the company name. I clicked in the post to put in my 2 pence, then read the whole image. Yeah… AI sucks.
Someone doesn’t know what a logo is for, I see.
“I created” and “with AI” is the newest oxymoron.
Art imitates life
This is not an AI vs professional human issue, this is an issue with taste. You cannot prevent someone from pointing to the right option and saying “I want that to be my logo because it’s a pretty illustration”
You can easily get ChatGPT to generate logos that are at least functional, give it a try. Start with
- What are the fundamental rules and standards of designing a logo?
- Based on these rules, generate a logo for the brand “HomeCraft” involving the shape of a house.
I’m not saying it comes close what a professional will give you, but it’s a million times better than what your worst DIY client brings to the table.
I decided to see what would be made following your prompt. Here’s the image.
Seems decent. Doesn’t really have the warmth of a home, but that’s more on the prompt specifying house without further detail. I took it a step further and told it to add a couch and a lamp like in the logo in the op.
I definitely prefer the freelancer one but I don’t think it’s bad. Certainly better than the logo in the op lmao.
Edit: given where I am I should probably specify I think it’s not bad compared to the trash fire that is the ai logo in the op. Design wise it’s very lazy and looks like someone threw in a pair of icons from an icon pack into a house in a generic way. The two assets in the house do not feel like they exist within the same space.
The bottom one looks like there’s an old car in the house hahaha
That’s fair. I think the biggest problem with AI logos is getting the AI to calm down. It can’t help but to fill the slop bucket completely full; even if you tell it to keep things simple, it has an overwhelming urge to just keep pumping in more detail.
Imo, the left hand logo is better. Can you imagine trying to get the right side logo on a hat? Probably the best you could do for a reasonable price is a shitty screen print job that’ll fall apart soon.
Maybe it’s been a while since you last tried. As a test, this is the first logo ChatGPT generated after 2 minutes of typing from me. I wouldn’t say it’s a good logo, but it’s not an over busy/problematic logo design wise.
Alright, yeah, that’s pretty good restraint there
Lol try printing that on merch, dumb dumb. That’s an awful logo. It’s really not even a logo, it’s a scene.
Reminds me of the very first Apple Computer logo:
They dropped that for a simpler logo, and then dropped the simpler logo for an even simpler one.
I would love to see a parallel world where all tech companies logos were all this detailed and old looking
And all the cases had wood paneling
Wait, is that for real?
Wow, yeah, that would be awful in most contexts. Imagine trying to print that on the front of a computer haha.
I’m pretty sure it was just a sticker for the first 20 years or so of Macintosh’s life, so I kinda doubt it would have been an actual issue.
Actually, I had one in like 99’ that had one of those cool bubble stickers for the logo. It was the Technicolor apple one not this, obviously, but I don’t see why this couldn’t have worked as a sticker back then
Because if you printed it the size of the Apple logo you’d need a microscope to make out anything on it.
I mean… Stamps
High tech with a 19th century sense of style? I’m sold!
Leather bound user manuals
Cases made of brass and oak
Big clicky switches and knurled knobs
If this was reality, I might get me an apple computer lol
Lol “dropped”
Well played.
Even if you took that image and used it to create a black and white illustration, it would be way too busy. The logo on the left isn’t exactly amazing, but it’s decent and checks all the boxes for usability and readability. The one on the right is more like… an image made for an ad which you can’t put on a hat for example. The amount of times I’ve had to explain logo basics to a client who want to do something like the image on the right isn’t great, but they usually understand why these rules are in place after explaining and they generally respect my expertise. But not everyone…
Why is the first thing I thought of Tabitha when I read dumb dumb XD
I work in an industry that deals with customer logos almost exclusively. I now get at least one person a week bringing in garbage-tier art they made in Canva or whatever that isn’t made to any standard at all, so they have tons of thin lines, gradients, blurring, etc. Shocker, AI only thinks about making it visually appealing when it won’t translate to a one-color, doesn’t have PMS tones to base it on, no simplified version, etc.
People think making a logo is just that. Just the image itself. They don’t think past what’s in front of them.
They don’t think past what’s in front of them.
I’m pretty sure you just summarized the human paradigm.
In my experience, most people have simply never thought about it before. If someone decides they want to open a bakery and they have never had a business before, they haven’t thought about everywhere their new logo will be used unless they get that expertise from someone. I’ve gotten pretty good at explaining these concepts to people and they typically respect my expertise and take my advice, but not everyone 😆
And that’s just it. In the past, you would have contacted a branding firm and paid someone with expertise to do all that for you. Now people think, “Why pay a branding firm when AI can do it in 5 minutes?”
I would think AI art would be perfect for the use case of “here is the general gist of what I want, now turn it into something usable”. I can also imagine basically nobody actually using it that way correctly though lol.
Devil’s advocate: Another way to think of it is that as AI tools mature, we will see more tools make an impact the way template-based web builders transitioned us away from, at best, charmingly kitchy html business websites of '95-'05 that are horribly optimized and broken half the time towards standardized options that cover the basics with curated choices for clients to express themselves without hanging themselves. Yes, the template builders did homogenize business websites, but for all the businesses that weren’t going to/couldn’t pay for a serious web developer/designer anyway I’d rather go to their website and experience a bland predictable layout than experience my browser melting even though there may be a glimmer of creativity from the enthusiastic teenager they hired to build it from scratch (I was that teenager).
We’re all fixated on how AI could not do the work for the top 25% of clients who require high quality professional work. We forget that 75% of clients cheap out for DIY/scam/hack options when it comes to design, resulting in lots of crap in the ether. AI tools have huge potential for smoothing out the low-hanging fruit of basic pain points.
tbh I prefer a logo with lots of colors and gradients, depth, lighting, etc. These ugly ass flat or outline logos have really ruined things
Personal taste is totally fine, but what you’re describing isn’t a logo, it’s an illustration. A good logo specifically must be simple so that it can be applied across a bunch of different contexts — print, digital, large, small. What if you wanted your logomark as a favicon? Depth and lighting would make it look like a smudge at that size. What about stitching your logo onto a hat?
This is the main issue. Logos are part of a brand system, and generating a logo with AI circumvents all that thought. You get something that might look good, but your whole system becomes super fragile.
Again, there’s no disagreeing with personal taste, it’s just a matter of thoughtful use of the system and medium.
Try embroidering your “logo with lots of colors and gradients, depth, lighting” on a polo shit and see how little of it actually translates. Or even a one color print job on a mailing. It will look like an unrecognizable hot garbage smudge.
Not only will it look terrible it’ll be significantly more expensive, each color and complication is going to add to the price. A simple logo with a clean silhouette is going to look nice and save money.
You might just need two versions. The full colour one where the underlying medium supports it well, and a mono version for more restrictive media.
That’s really only suitable if the logo is going be displayed at a larger size on a screen. Many times logos will be displayed much smaller, such as when used as a favicon. When you cram too many details into a small space it just becomes noise. This also applies if people glance at the logo, since too much detail will make it difficult to work out what it is.
Also as other people have mentioned. If you are going to be printing your logo, then you do need to have a design that uses just negative and positive space since it’s easier to print and will look much cleaner.
Additionally it’s pretty common for organizations to have multiple versions of the logo as well. Usually a black and white one, a colored version of it, and versions with and without text. They could also have a more detailed version of the logo as well, but the other versions are more useful, so they may not even bother.
That logo is terrible.
Like, a core component of a good logo is that it’s easily identifiable at a glance at all shapes and sizes and on various backgrounds… complicated photorealistic logos basically lack all of these criteria by default.
This is why you need someone experienced not some ai slop.
Logo on the right is what you give a marketing team so they can tell you the 600 ways it won’t print right, cost too much to display, and ultimately rework it into logo on the left.
AI generated art is the new “cousin who knows Photoshop”.
This is fine, and mostly benign.
The one on the left is superior for a massive number of reasons.
Simple and easy to print, make copies of documents without becoming illegible, and other paperwork related reasons.
Easy to recognize at a glance. The one on the right is really hard to make out at a small size. Just a bland beige blob.
There is a reason most familiar logos are monochrome or only a few colors, and simplicity is one of them. The one on the right looks like overly bust clipart.
The one on the left is a couch inside a house with a lamp, all of which make sense together. The plants overlap the wall and there is a chandelier over the couch on the right one. Who puts a chandalier over a couch?
Ugh, I know it is obviously awful but I had to get it out.
I do prefer the AI font choice unfortunately
so sayeth artist_mariana lmao
She’s an artist the way I’m a chef when I go to a restaurant and order food.
It’s probably a bot for marketing the platform
Lol was looking for this comment
Sometimes I think the AI bubble is about people who don’t understand computers being put in a kind of purgatory where they have to work out why everything is wrong and bad.
What is up with the weird soft look that so many AI images have?
It’s spontaneously pleasant to see for most people, and I believe that’s why it was favoured in the training process of the various image generators.
It’s probably trained on a fuckton of Thomas Kinkade paintings, just statistically, since his output was so huge. He also had that kind of lighting going on, so it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s just baked into AI image generation now.
Interesting. Never heard of him, but immediately recognized the style
There’s a good couple of episodes from Behind the Bastards about him, if you’re into that sort of thing.
Limitations of AI. That can’t do it any other way. That’s one of the ways to spot them.
