We had to make a rule against AI witch hunts. It brings out the worst in humans.
And an owner who believes that means the locals want to “destroy” her business.
Im not choosing a side, but it doesn’t seem like they have a strong future with or without a logo. That’s just Santa Cruz culture, very aggro surfers.
Many of the surrounding restaurants are very immersed in local surf culture and put a great deal of resources and effort into their decor.
And if you made it through all 99 beers on their list, you got a small plaque on the wall, about the size of one of those e-ink grocery price tags. It was a great tavern-like atmosphere, and the kind of place that felt increasingly rare even before it was gone.
This sums it up well. If this were in New York, I’d be on the owner’s side (provided the food lives up). In Santa Cruz, it’s just tone deaf to (a) not involve the community in the design process, (b) not take the hint from the reviews and then (c) play the victim in the media.
It's their town. Also, I can't help but wonder why the owner didn't fight fire with playful fire–her place is literally called the salty otter. Be lovably salty!
I'd create an ad campaign for all my competitors-flyers, doorhangers etc. with the same info their usual ads have, but with slop-AI art all over them.
There isn't anything wrong w/ Santa Cruz that couldn't be solved by motivated YIMBYs parking a city of 800,000 people on top of it.
there is this coffee shop in downtown Seattle, Artly coffee, that operates on this gimmick of serving robot-produced coffee. a 20 year old employee hangs in the back to essentially do nothing and sit on their phone. it is a silly experience worth trying once, but no more. Coffee by itself is already a cross section into the hyperindustrial production that has informed the trajectory of our lives since before being born, but i feel regardless there are such things that are a step too far
Not having to deal with the currently still trendy coffee culture and getting exactly the same coffee every time sounds perfect. Or let's say, it's perfect if the product tastes good.
Coffee is not that much different from Starbucks or any other big chain or even many indie places.
2) Some automated processes lower the quality of outcomes. Microwaving food might be a faster/cheaper way to cook, but customers might criticize the results.
3) Some processes can be viewed as having lower value compared to others, independent of result quality. This is particularly common in the art and service industries, for which the logo of a restaurant is very much at the intersection.
Those same people are probably mad "desktop publishing" took the livelihoods of people who drew things by hand, used multi-media plus used exactoes and paste to bring designs to life.
I'm not sure what it's called, but there has to be a name for this logical error.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
The reviewer is essentially saying: “If they cut corners on X, they must cut corners on Y”, which is a common logical error in making judgments based on incomplete information.
In this case, I would definitely agree that people that act sloppily in one aspect of business will almost always do the same in other aspects. More generally, I'd say that most classical logical fallacies are actually useful rules of thumb.
For a restaurant, a slop logo gives the impression that the owner doesn't care about the details and has no taste.
Beyond that, the use of generative models is a big moral issue for a growing number of people.
It's like arguing you wouldn't trust a lawyer with a medical negligence case if they can't suture a wound.
Or you wouldn't trust a graphic designer with a restaurant logo if they can't make good scrambled eggs.
Are you looking for "category confusion"? It's a conflation, but let's look at the logic. (So yes, my prior is that there is logic.)
"If they generated their logo by mumbling things at a toaster / picking something from the vending machine and then 'owning' it, how likely is it that they stole a sandwich in a grubby wrapper from a bum and are going to hand it to me and say 'I made this'?"
Edit: the article is paywalled, but a number of comments remark on the owner's sense of entitlement. So my moot is probably close for throwing blind. So then that might be the real issue, and the logo is a proxy for a perception of lack of work + mental bullying.
That simply isn't true though. It's not even possible to be true. Will a neurosurgeon put as much time in their cooking/cleaning/etc as they do their surgeries? There's not enough time/energy.
I don't think that's a logical error at all. That is the explicit and overtly stated plan and promise of AI.
A logo is quite literally one of the first things you see, it informs your first impression of a company. If they really care so little about that: then it does follow that they also care little about food standards, quality ingredients and paying their chefs/waiters appropriately. All of this leading to a poor experience.
A bit of artistic inspiration is fine, not everything has to be the pinnacle of design: but you know what? Those blatant mcdonalds logo ripoff logos or “falafel king” don’t inspire confidence either.
What is it that makes this different?
Nobody likes picturing a world without art, and if nobody gets paid to make art... where does the art come from?
Nobody likes thinking where this trend goes. If we automate all the jobs away... everyone will starve.
Obviously what I want isn't that important in the grand scheme of things, but its why I don't support using AI for anything creative over and above the ethics of companies capturing all of the value of everyone's past artwork, which also is soulless and aesthetically disgusting, much more so than an artist spending 1000s of hours learning from studying other art and synthesizing a similar style.