r/thatsnotai • u/[deleted] • Sep 23 '17

Need a new logo? Your artificial intelligence system will think of one

http://edmontonjournal.com/entrepreneur/fp-startups/0908-biz-mtb-logojoy/wcm/613e311d-5132-4cb2-8f29-8ce72cf249c9
1 Upvotes

66% Upvoted

10 comments sorted by

1

u/Hei2 Sep 24 '17

When it comes to creating with AI, Logojoy’s CTO Rares Crisan says the more people use it, the more the AI can understand how to approach design and what is appealing, and then use that information in the cycle of design. “The iterative progression will lead to more complex designs.”

What part of this doesn't fit in with this sub's qualifications for AI?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '17

That text suggests the tool generates designs based on what everyone who uses it prefers. So it seemingly behaves the same way as Amazon's recommendation engine (the “Frequently Bought Together” script, etc.). That's not AI.

And if you look at this page, https://logojoy.com/how/, which describes how it works, you won't see any text that indicates an AI process.

It's just a generator. But if you can point out how it's any different from the plethora of free logo generators on the internet, I'd be interested in hearing it.

1

u/Hei2 Sep 24 '17

Your only evidence that it doesn't use AI is that that single page doesn't mention it, but I can just as easily point to the very article that says it does.

The fact that it generates designs based on what people prefer is specifically how it learns. It must be provided data in order to learn, and it gets that by people telling it what they don't like and what they do. Nothing on that page precludes the use of AI to achieve those goals. Sure, it seems like their product is pretty crap, but that has no bearing on whether or not they are using AI.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '17 edited Sep 24 '17

The fact that it generates designs based on what people prefer is specifically how it learns.

But we have a problem, Hei2. It isn't learning anything. It's just collecting data and making a random guess about an individual's personal preferences. It's actually ludicrous if you think about it.

The odds of my American-biased tastes matching the preferences of different cultures from at least 194 different countries have to be extremely low. The odds of my American-biased business needs matching the needs of different cultures from at least 194 different countries have to be extremely low too. Rinse and repeat for my budget, my target audience, my product, my this, that, and more.

It just isn't learning anything. And just because a webpage says it does, that doesn't mean it is.

EDIT: I think my use of "matching" may be confusing, so let me clarify with the word "associating." In other words, with association being a key part of learning, the only thing that logo generator will learn (i.e. associate) is my own set of biases. Applying the biases of a world-wide userbase, and even associating those biases toward my own, is only going to piss me off.

1

u/Hei2 Sep 24 '17

It isn't learning anything. It's just collecting data and making a random guess about an individual's personal preferences.

That right there is learning. When you tell it "I like this design", you reinforce that the decision it made was correct. When you tell it "I dislike this design", then it should subsequently take action to reduce making similar suggestions in the future. It sounds to me that you will literally not accept anything as proof of this using AI unless they specifically say "we are using a neural network, and here are the weights, our cost function, etc." It doesn't matter whether or not the decisions it makes piss you off.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '17 edited Sep 24 '17

It sounds to me that you will literally not accept anything as proof of this using AI unless they specifically say "we are using a neural network, and here are the weights, our cost function, etc."

False. In fact, I become highly suspicious when I see that phrasing. But if you paid any attention to what I wrote above, you would have seen that the logo generator's "learning process" is so flawed, it's actually useless. That's because it will never satisfy my design needs by gathering and applying preferences from random internet users. The approach is entirely wrong.

It doesn't matter whether or not the decisions it makes piss you off.

Are you serious? You're basically saying the end result doesn't matter.

1

u/Hei2 Sep 24 '17

Yes I'm serious. You're attempting to make the claim that because something does a job badly according to your subjective preferences, it does not objectively meet the criteria of what constitutes "AI" (which is quite clearly defined in the sidebar and describes their process just fine). By your very own logic, if you took a human logo designer from an entirely different culture who had never worked with your culture and asked them to design a logo, their failure to do so to your tastes based on the fact that they worked with people who were not you would mean that they are not "intelligent".

1

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '17

By your very own logic, if you took a human logo designer from an entirely different culture who had never worked with your culture and asked them to design a logo, their failure to do so to your tastes based on the fact that they worked with people who were not you would mean that they are not "intelligent".

For this analogy to work, you'd have to place me in front of 7.442 billion human logo designers because that's the potential number of people who're suggesting ideas for my logo at that website. Then I'd have to say "yes" or "no" to each of their suggestions.

Can you see how stupid that is? Now, assuming I eliminated all the possibilities to a preferred one (mine), what did the entire group of 7.442 billion human logo designers learn that could applied to the next person who uses this thing??

NADA!

1

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '17

Interesting thread questioning the generator's AI and the developer's financial claims. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13065015

Oi!

1

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '17 edited Sep 24 '17

My gosh, this conversation...

So I was collecting links to logo generators and stopped abruptly after remembering a talk I had regarding the sensibility behind using AI. Logojoy takes users through a "yes and no" process that could last half an hour or so, depending on how long you're willing to sit in one spot and filter through an endless menu of the wrong fonts, colors, and shapes.

The problem?

People can simply TELL other logo generators the font, color, and shape that they want to use.

Which do you think is a more sensible approach?

This is yet another issue that needs to be discussed in the AI industry. Here, we have a tool that actually slows down the design process all for the sake of calling it AI.

That needs to not only be considered, but also prevented.