AI logo generation is changing design, but not always for the better. Yes, the technology is clever. Yes, it can be a brilliant tool. But at what cost? Creativity, originality, and ownership are not small details. When ideas are generated from patterns of existing work, where do we draw the line between innovation and plagiarism? Because “inspired by” and “accidentally designed by the entire internet” are not quite the same thing. I was reading about a designer having to completely rebuild an AI-generated logo a company wanted to use because, despite looking “finished”, it was not vectorised, scalable, or prepared for print, web, or real-world application. And that’s the thing. A logo is not just a pretty picture. It has to work hard behind the scenes too. Design is strategy, systems, craft, and understanding how creativity translates into something functional, usable, and built to last. AI is a powerful tool, but it does not replace the thinking behind good design, at least not without a few very expensive headaches. So here’s my question to designers. Where do you draw the line? If a company comes to you with an AI-generated logo, do you refuse the work on principle? Do you educate and rebuild? Or do you work with it because helping clients bridge that gap is now part of the job?
Using an AI-generated image to explain this point is honestly so ironic 👀. And this is definitely not the right way to use AI if the results are intentionally made to look bad like this. Human creativity is shifting more toward how we envision and execute ideas rather than spending hours doing repetitive manual work. Integrating AI into workflows is only going to help in the long run. At the end of the day, it’s still you who needs to understand the work, apply the knowledge, and bring actual value. Posts like these do more harm than good because they purposely create lame outputs just to “prove” AI can’t do a good job, and then use that as the argument against it.
Isn’t the image it self AI? 😅 Agree with your point though, at least for now.
Human creativity, thinking, and real-world application still play a huge role 🙌
I think we are approaching a time when we need to begin differentiating generative ai from ai automation. Generative was, and continues to be low hanging fruit for both proponents and critics of AI but the real power of AI comes into play when designers start using it for organization, automations, brand systems building, etc. and by brand systems building, I don’t mean a designer should be letting AI ideate, but rather take the marching orders and execute.
I enjoy designing and being creative and would like AI to help with more mundane tasks instead. For example, a prompt could be “reduce the size of this file without impacting the image quality” and have AI do all of the calculations to make that happen. Make AI a tool for creatives without taking the creativity out of our day.
Algunas veces como diseñador gráfico debes ser bombero: urgencias de todo tipo y para “ya”. Y muchas otras también ser mercenario: hacer tal cual lo que te piden, porque te pagan. Y otras tantas, tu creatividad sirve para que el cliente juegue a ser diseñador, y tú, el diseñador, pasas a ser su ejecutor: sube, baja, más grande, color tal… tú les dices: no te lo aconsejo, no es adecuado, no es para tu público objetivo… y te responde… si si pero hazlo. Educar al cliente? Raramente posible, porque para creerte necesita verlo. Ahora con la IA, crea eso que tiene en la cabeza (y que no sabe transmitírtelo con un briefing, que generalmente está mal hecho o no existe), y entonces juega a ser creativo. Si ha sido capaz de hacer un buen prompt, queda muy bonito, pero le falta el conocimiento y herramientas para prepararlo para todos sus usos en el mundo real. Y entonces ahí entra el diseñador mercenario, y seguramente también bombero, porque corre ya muchísima prisa. El cliente valorará que le soluciones el problema con un enorme “gracias”, pero no va a querer pagar lo justo por tu oficio, diligencia y resolución que ha hecho posible “su creatividad”. Porque al fin y al cabo, él ya lo ha hecho prácticamente todo.
Actually let me be the devil's advocate on this one. 1. Vectorized; you can request a PNG without a background (duotone), then trace the bitmap into an object. 2. Scalability; I know that my vector program, Inkscape (and sister ship Gimp), allow me to Bitmap scale. I am currently scaling basic AI images designed by Nano Banana 2 up to 10' by 8' (at 300 dpi) with absolutely zero pixelation. 3. Limited usability; I am working with both 300 gsm Canvas and 170 GSM glicee poster paper, and once again all I have to do is bring it into my Editor and run a color adjustment script to brighten the usually pale colors provided by AI compositions for the medium i intend to print with. 4. Source Files; see step 1. That said- I have decided to embrace AI for content creation because ultimately it isn't competition it's another tool I have in my toolbox. Understanding that particular creative process is more important than ever in the changing digital landscape. Besides, don't you think the arguements were similar when computers started taking over this industry? Just a thought
The "designers need to integrate AI into their workflow" narrative really just means let an AI do the thinking and creative bits. Then the person does the execution to make it work. i.e., vectorize the JPEG concept the AI spit out. I think it is dangerous to suggest that our value is making it work for print, creating vector files, etc. Because I think AI will get there eventually. Maybe even soon. Where I think AI will never arrive is... meaning, intent, story, nuance, deep understanding, etc. Listening, observing, discovering, and translating that into something real is our actual power. And it is uniquely human. The best AI won't ever be able to do that because it requires living the human experience and relating to other humans beyond an algorithmic understanding. I think that is where we need to be conveying our value.
This image itself is AI Generated. 😂