[MajorBee]

Why is so much of generated AI art so... literal? The cover art of this PDF literally spells out what the graphics are supposed to represent. The vast majority of AI visuals on LinkedIn are the same way. If this is what's in store as the future of art, at least commercial art -- feels like a huge step backwards if I'm being honest.

And anyway, what's the point of generating a massive tome like this on a topic evolving as fast as agentic software? Sure it will be outdated within months, if not weeks...

[BloondAndDoom]

I’m guessing because it’s not produced by artists or people who has an eye for art generally.

When it comes to the book, changes are 80% is written by AI. I mean lots of content produced just pure AI, I’m following some AI subreddits and majority of the posts very obviously generate with couple of prompts, they don’t even bother styling while copy pasting. I’m really struggling to read online content recently.

[popalchemist]

Partly it's a byproduct of the way that prompting works. Partly it's that the majority of people generating content with AI are not skilled at conceptualizing imagery in the way creative professionals are. I think it's moreso the latter.

[MajorBee]

I just noticed that the PDF cover simply says "© <Author>", not the traditional style of author attribution, which usually is just plain "<Author>". I don't know why, I found it interesting...

[slowmovintarget]

The sweet conference speaking fees, followed by the resultin' consultin'.

[smj-edison]

Could it be since a lot of the data is trained on captions? At least if I'm remembering correctly, that's what they use to create the association between what's seen and what's said.

[N_Lens]

The answer is - Grift!