Most active commenters
  • rrr_oh_man(3)
  • Spivak(3)

←back to thread

Our New AI Website Builder

(wordpress.com)
93 points bookofjoe | 12 comments | 11 Apr 25 14:36 UTC | HN request time: 1.792s | source | bottom
Show context
imagetic[dead post] ◴[11 Apr 25 17:37 UTC] No.43656363[source]▶
[flagged]
1. paul7986 ◴[11 Apr 25 17:59 UTC] No.43656591[source]▶
chatGPT (pro at least) creates amazing logos in 30 seconds, amazing look websites around the logo you settled on and then codes the front-end (html,css,js). That can all be done in 5 minutes or less.

As UX Designer and UI Developer who does all the above (also do UX Research which anything where you interface with humans i think is safe for awhile) it's slightly disheartening to see my skill-sets future worth.....

Where I work we were told we can't use GPT and that is fine, but in what a year to three or five Im sure their stance will change.

replies(2): >>43656656 #>>43657384 #
2. ToucanLoucan ◴[11 Apr 25 18:07 UTC] No.43656656[source]▶
From an audience perspective, if you use an AI generated site, I'm just assuming your product is shit. And not even because I'm opposed to the way AI is being used in many places (though I am) but for the same reason I don't buy products that advertise with shitty commercials that look like they were filmed in 2006 on a budget of $500. If you don't have a marketing budget for proper advertising, I'm assuming your product is some fly-by-night garbage that's likely to break on first use, if not an outright scam.

Is that fair? No probably not, but I don't know what to tell you. That's always been a rule of thumb for me: if the marketing presence of anything, services, products, tooling, what have you is cheaply/poorly made, I avoid it. I always have almost instinctively.

replies(2): >>43656719 #>>43657243 #
3. paul7986 ◴[11 Apr 25 18:15 UTC] No.43656719[source]▶
If you have GPT pro or know someone try it out .. create a logo with it then ask it to create a website around your chosen logo and then ask it to code the front-end. Im sure it can do the back-end code too. The logos and the web design it creates around the chosen logo look amazing .. extremely pro level. I'm not sure how you or anyone would be able to decipher if a website and or brand used chatGPT (pro). I'm betting no one would be able to tell just that it looks really good to great and professional!

Personally it's a wake up call for my skill-sets of over 15 years and that increasing my skillsets to 2025 modern day skill sets is best thing for me and any in my field!

replies(2): >>43656910 #>>43656984 #
4. rrr_oh_man ◴[11 Apr 25 18:33 UTC] No.43656910{3}[source]▶
> The logos and the web design it creates around the chosen logo look amazing .. extremely pro level

Loss of words.

I'd be happy to have your standards in life.

replies(2): >>43657307 #>>43657326 #
5. ToucanLoucan ◴[11 Apr 25 18:39 UTC] No.43656984{3}[source]▶
I will Pepsi challenge this at your convenience. Give me some links if you like.
6. Spivak ◴[11 Apr 25 18:59 UTC] No.43657243[source]▶
It's pretty easy easy to detect copy from the major AIs since they have a distinctive voice but a website coded by AI won't be nearly as easy.
7. Spivak ◴[11 Apr 25 19:05 UTC] No.43657307{4}[source]▶
They do though— it's mostly because the pros aren't terribly good either. If your standards are "the top 0.001%" of graphic and web design then yeah, AI designs aren't on the level. But if your standards are simply as good or better than your typical professional design consulting firm then AI is knocking it out of the park.
replies(1): >>43657527 #
8. cyral ◴[11 Apr 25 19:07 UTC] No.43657326{4}[source]▶
The new image generation released two weeks ago or so is a massive improvement, doesn't look like typical AI slop.

Everyone in these threads that dismisses AI needs to remember 5 years ago we didn't have somewhat human level intelligence that we could command to complete tasks in 30 seconds. There are a lot of cases where it fails right now, but imagine what it's going to look like in 5 or 10 more years. I think it's good to at least play around with it (prompt experimenting) to see what it can do, because your competitors, coworkers, etc are going to do that and get ahead whether you like it or not.

9. morsecodist ◴[11 Apr 25 19:13 UTC] No.43657384[source]▶
Can you say more? What are you doing specifically? I use AI for some things (mostly assisting with software development) and I have had a wildly different experience. I have used ChatGPT o1 and made some icons for internal apps so our employees can easily pick them from a list and the AI generated logos look just awful. I go with them because aesthetics don't matter for this use case they just need to be visually recognizable but it doesn't understand the concept of a logo it wouldn't even give me a white background let alone a transparent one.

I have had some success with some UI components but I usually need to massage them a bit and anything big or requiring a lot of changes it starts to trip over itself.

10. rrr_oh_man ◴[11 Apr 25 19:26 UTC] No.43657527{5}[source]▶
> good or better than your typical professional design consulting firm

Can you give me one example of a decent logo design made by ChatGPT that does exactly that — look good or better than your typical professional design consulting firm? I have literally tried today, but the results have been... very meh. :)

replies(1): >>43657927 #
11. Spivak ◴[11 Apr 25 20:03 UTC] No.43657927{6}[source]▶
That's no fun. Instead let's play a game. One of these logos was made by a professional design firm and cost over $1,000,000. The other two I just generated. The gap between well-known national brands with millions of dollars to hire the best and what normal companies actually get is massive.

https://imgur.com/a/5En58cl

replies(1): >>43658121 #
12. rrr_oh_man ◴[11 Apr 25 20:23 UTC] No.43658121{7}[source]▶
They are all pretty terrible, but I guess the rhombus-caret one is real.

The stripes one is rounded (looks shit when small), the complicated one is complicated for no reason.

Good logos work when black-and-white and when very small or very large.

And one more thing: The high cost of a rebrand isn’t paid for the logo or the redesign of stationary. It’s for the pain & process of aligning a committee of aloof decision-makers around a single choice.