그래픽 디자이너

marvin jakata (적당한)이 말합니다.

i would say moderate because in as much as AI is coming there still will need that using touch combined with it but then also the market might become too overcrowded with more and more people coming into the design space.

Wil이 말합니다.

Clients will not pay designers handsomely because 90 percent of the work will be done with Ai tools such as Dalle 3. Small adjustments takes minutes in photoshop and can be done in-house by almost anyone.

Sponge Bob Squarepants (불확실한)이 말합니다.

20 years is a long time. Would you have expected this AI boom twenty years ago? Who knows how fast AI will develop in the future. Imagine showing someone SORA twenty years ago. They would be in disbelief.

Graphic design is too broad of a term in my opinion. There's logo design, web design, package design, wayfinding design, branding, mobile design, t-shirt design, print design, poster design, and much more.

Digital art and illustrations I think are already under threat. When the art being generated is general and the boundaries of art are more forgiving, then the general nature of AI will thrive. But for more exacting work like logo design, web design, and package design, AI struggles from my experience.

I have played around with Adobe's built-in AI tools for Illustrator and Photoshop. While they're cool to play with, I often find myself wasting time playing prompt engineering, when I could have created something on my own faster. If I as a designer don't have patience to prompt-engineer my way into a design, I'm certain clients won't either.

There's also levels to graphic design. Maybe AI will get rid of the bad designers and the bad clients! But the precise, custom, unique work that many clients look for is hard to replace.

Lastly, being a graphic designer is more than just the technical skills. It's about directing a vision for the design. Even if AI is 100% perfect, it may not understand the client's needs.

Agt (낮은)이 말합니다.

Clients will get designs from automated AI, but they will start to look all very similar, lacking personality. A good graphic designer can listen to their clients and deliver what they ask, get feedback and adjust accordingly

Loris (매우 가능성이 높음)이 말합니다.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is learning so fast that we are barely able to control its advancement. Even now, it's possible to create very high-quality videos and/or images. Before long, with the right prompt (or prompts), we will be able to specify the type of image, video, or message we want to be developed.

Kev (매우 가능성이 높음)이 말합니다.

Anyone who doesn't think that this will become automated in the next 5 years, is kidding themselves. the writing is on the walls

Noah Siler (매우 가능성이 높음)이 말합니다.

Dalle-3 is extremely good at making art, in the next 20 years the improvement will be substantial.

Andrew (낮은)이 말합니다.

Clients can barely tell *me* what they want. Good luck telling an AI what they want. That requires much more creative and flexible human mindset

Consider pivoting now that you can (적당한)이 말합니다.

Honestly at this pace if AI doesn't slows down I do think it will replace human labor up to certain point. It already has provided really impressive tools that could be used to achieve a certain task with one or two designers, compared to before AI that you needed niche skills.

For example, composite specialized designers have already taken a toll. Sure AI generated composites are still funky, but with enough time all their flaws WILL be perfected.

I can't imagine a future that AI doesn't learns proper design theory and starts applying it, rendering mostly generalist graphic designers useless. More niche skills requiring a human to take decisions such as "Is this appropriate for the brand?" will still be needed, but I'm not sure still.

A few years ago there was a website that said "Artists can't be replaced because AI can't draw", and here we are. For as much as we try to guess AI will keep outperforming in ways we can't expect, until it happens.

Samuel (매우 가능성이 높음)이 말합니다.

AIs like Adobe Firefly are improving at being precise on which image you wish to create.

dhaarini (매우 가능성이 높음)이 말합니다.

there are websites like ideogram.ai that can generate logs with whatever text we want to add, by just prompting. certainly the demand of engineers will become low in the coming years

Lucille (낮은)이 말합니다.

As mentioned, one main part of it requires originality, human touch and knowledge and great examination and execution of details, plus having one graphic designer with great coverage in many forms of media can be better than 10 ais together

d (기회 없음)이 말합니다.

Most commentary here is from people who are either very young or very removed from the actual profession of graphic design or most art that is used professionally. It is not, at all, a field that is about "generating" art or designs. It is about exactness, specificity, and unintuitive associations. Exactness from customers, developers, clients, coworkers, bosses, etc.

The problem that people don't seem to understand is that all the generative ai programs right now produce art that's very cool to look at and art that no one would ever pay for, because they don't understand the point of paying for art in the first place.

There are billions of cool images you get get for free online right now. Graphic designers already compete against that, and yet, they're still paid.

Why?

The reason why artists are paid is because people want something very specific, and all generative AI right now, and in the future, will fail the specificity requirement because it by nature has to give probabilistic (aka common) answers, and as people adapt to AI art existing, the demands on specificity will increase.

Manish Joshi (기회 없음)이 말합니다.

Creativity can't be replaced

Susan Shedlow (적당한)이 말합니다.

Because the technology is rapidly advancing without regulations.

Morgan Freeman (매우 가능성이 높음)이 말합니다.

Unfortunately, digital art is something pattern recognition robots can produce quite well with minimal effort. Graphic designers are going the way of the dodos within the next 5 years. Soon, any non-artist will be able to create any digital image that they would like with a single prompt.

Jeffrey Davis이 말합니다.

Designers who focus their practice on critical thinking — specifically creative problem solving — are at less risk of automation. Those designers that focus more on aesthetics and technique are at a much higher risk of obsolescence due to automation.
—
As a design educator at a university with a well respected communication design program who has embraced AI use by my junior/senior level students over the last two semesters, I have watched our students aided by AI, produce more strategic, well researched and well executed advertising and brand designs that far exceed their peers who are not using AI. I have seen the most progress in:
- organization
- accuracy
- time management
- writing skills
- iterative idea generation
- clarity of communication
- audience insights
- persona building
- animation
- automation of manual task
Their approach is more efficient and and happens much quicker allowing them more time for a more irrational process foe problem solving and concept generation and in turn allowing more time for refinement of initial design exploration, which lead to outcomes they far exceeded their expectations.
—-
In my 25-years as a design educator I have never seen this kind of student improvement and quality of outcomes in the above categories/areas.
—-
These students will — with a high degree of certainty— enter the market with a baseline knowledge of AI that will far exceed most of the more senior employees and management of the firms that will employ them. Most likely they will demonstrate better time management, process and modality engagement and organizational proficiency. Aided by AI and with an in-depth knowledge of AI they will be highly valued for their efficiency by offloading manual and time absorbing task like research, composing emails, etc. allowing them to be hyper focused on create problem-solving and more strategy solutions and outcomes.
—
We would reserve class time to discuss the ethics and implications of using AI covering, authenticity, originality, IP volitions, copyright violations. Additionally, In compliance with our University’s Code of Academic Honesty they include citations and attributions to what AI sources were used.
—-
Like most of us, I’m both excited and a bit apprehensive about AI. I’m optimistic that AI can help elevate and augment a designer’s approach and creative outcomes. The difficulty I face and an educator is the unprecedented pace at which AI is expanding. There is no doubt they AI will get abused and it will require guidelines and policies that are currently non existent.

Brad (매우 가능성이 높음)이 말합니다.

With AI, industries will easily be able to afford an in-house graphic art department that can create endless examples, in different formats. It will also reduce error of wrong prices, misspelled words, etc.

Albert Igner (불확실한)이 말합니다.

Recent AI has shown remarkable production possibilities. However it seems there would be more data input to hopefully generate what you want than to hire a designer to do the job.

bill (매우 가능성이 높음)이 말합니다.

because current AI does not "create" the way people do, but merely copies other graphic design and reorganizes large quantities of already produced design to produce works that resemble what is already acceptable within that field