Illustrator AI

[default2rkbo39it64o]

I have been looking at the AI generated results because I am a professional designer who pays a lot for my monthly subscription and am appauled at how bad the results are. Is adobe trying to destroy the creative industry by using sub standard functions in to their applications. Not only do some of the results have no resemblance to what actual subjects look like, but the amount of extra anchor points and bad joins would take a designer a couple of hours to go through and fix. Please adobe, look at what you are producing, the cost is too high, Photoshop generative fill is very poor resolution too and you can easily see the join from where the AI has badly done its job. None of the AI features are of any use to a print designer, as print is so unforgiving and the wuality just isn't there. And before a community expert says can you post some examples, I am not wasting my time screengrabbing things that you are all aware of and are ignoring already. AI is not fit for purpose, please stop now!

[Doug A Roberts]

Like most current AI applications, it works for situations where sloppy construction is good enough. That's a fairly large subset of consumer use cases. If you need precise work, it isn't for you.

[default2rkbo39it64o]

Thanks for taking the time to reply, as you say sloppy construction, and I think thats what is bothering me. Why are Adobe charging a premium when its applications produce sloppy construction. The trouble is that people who aren't aware of how bad the results are will be making designers work for less money because they think things take less time, they will view illustration work as a couple of minute job, adobe are hurting the creative industry with AI. What is the point of a badly produced illustration or icon or logo when you have super talented illustrators and graphic designers who are producing amazing work.

[Doug A Roberts]

I think this is an AI problem, not specifically an Adobe problem. My opinion is that people generally will become accustomed to sloppier work because an AI can do it quickly. Perhaps they already are.

[default2rkbo39it64o]

Adobe have put the prices up as they say that the new features justify that. Adobe are using AI in its applications, so yes it is an Adobe problem. Adobe have chosen to use AI and have put the prices up. When I open photoshop or illustrator it is adobe software I am using and paying for, so it is absolutely an Adobe problem, they have made it their problem by adopting it and putting the prices up to include it. If Adobe knew that the results were poor, then why include them in their products.

[Doug A Roberts]

Adobe have put the prices up as they say that the new features justify that.

By @default2rkbo39it64o

Did they state this explicitly anywhere? I'd imagine if this was the case, it's because there is server-side infrastructure involved in the Gen AI system, as well as new web portals (for Firefly).

I don't think it is currently possible to get accurate and economically-designed vector artwork using their current AI process, as it's some kind of image trace from the AI model's raster output. But as I said, I don't think it's for you or me. It's for the (probably quite large) subset of the customer base that view the output as 'good enough'. I have to accept that software is for different sets of users with different use cases than just me., and as a result it may go in directions that are of no use to me or that I don't like. The methods you and I have to fight against this are limited. You can list your concerns on Uservoice (but there you must be as specific as possible, 'produces poor results' might not be specific enough); you can join the Prerelease program and bring up these topics with the developers:

https://illustrator.uservoice.com/

https://www.adobeprerelease.com

[default2rkbo39it64o]

I recieved an email telling me that the monthly subscription was going up. I haven't got the exact wording as have probably deleted the email. But it basically said the reason for the price increase was because of the new features, AI being the biggest one that they seem to be pushing on everyone as being a good thing. That generative task bar that appears all the time is an example. It doesn't actually matter the exact wording, but honestly why put the prices up if they are using AI which is terrible in its current state. Everyone can see how bad it is, it needs to be addressed by adobe.

[Monika Gause]

Generative AI is inherently pixel based. So the results need to be autotraced. In Autotracing you get what you get.

Autotracing is not intellegent enough to recognize geometric shapes. And it doesn't look like that would be happening anytime soon. 

[default2rkbo39it64o]

Thanks, I guess the problem I have is that if its not fit for purpose then it shouldn't be included in the application or applications. AI is an absolute joke quality wise and I wish Adobe would recognise that and stop putting the prices up for a product that is not up to scratch. Either Adobe should make it work or take it off the applications, or reduce the price of the subscription to compensate for the poor results. 

[Monika Gause]

Illustrator has got a lot of other features apart from generative AI. And contrary to e.g. InDesign it also gets new ones quite often.

[default2rkbo39it64o]

The skill of the designer working with indesign creates amazing layouts as it should be. Illustrater and photoshop seem to be pushing the use of AI which creates poor results that are not up to scratch, a pro designers work is far superior to the absolute rubbish that the poorly cobbled together AI algorithm chucks out with no quaality control. Adobe should reduce the price of their subscription to reflect the poor results of AI, or stop using it completely and let talented human beings create beautiful work.

[Monika Gause]

I guess that a lot of pros who create amazing work with the use of AI would disagree with you. In many Photoshop artworks you won't even notice where the AI has been used (hint: in many places)

[default2rkbo39it64o]

But they don't produce amazing work with the use of AI and you can see the join where AI has been used. If you are working as a print designer and you used AI generative fill on a high resolution image you can clearly see the join because the AI part is rendered in a lower resolution. The only use for AI is for very quick cobbled together low res images for social media posts or maybe a visual on a website. The quality is not there for print design. Yet we are all charged a premium for adobe products which include poor quality results. Plus the copyright issue of AI taking from talented designers and illustrators work and churning out some bad copy of it. I could go on but I think I've made my point, and I could waste my time and generate a load of bad AI results to prove my point but I will leave it there.

[Bobby Henderson]

Adobe Illustrator is not an "artificial intelligence" tool. The primary purpose of the application is for creating vector-based graphics and vector illustrations using manual methods. Adobe Illustrator has been around since the late 1980's, decades before all the hype surrounding so-called "AI". Many people who have used the application over the years have created their own work without having to use something like "AI" as a crutch, scam or cop-out.

[default2rkbo39it64o]

I agree, well said

[Monika Gause]

But they don't produce amazing work with the use of AI and you can see the join where AI has been used. If you are working as a print designer and you used AI generative fill on a high resolution image you can clearly see the join because the AI part is rendered in a lower resolution. 

By @default2rkbo39it64o

Clearly you have not seen the advanced work people are producing with it and do not know how to overcome those things. There are ways that do not include third party software. Please go watch some tutorials.

Personally I am not into artificial intelligence at all, but I see that it can have value for other people. Even the vector generated stuff. I have created enough (vector based) animations to actually see where it can fill in the blanks that you have with the backgrounds. You never have enough material for that. Searching for clipart and even creating those endless trees and bushes and whatnot from scratch takes an eternity.

But also: for the AI to improve it needs to be used by actual people. The engineers cannot make it on their own. 

Print design is not the only use case for Illustrator. Hasn't been since the 1990ies. 

[default2rkbo39it64o]

I have seen plenty of dreadful AI generated images made in photoshop and Illustrater thankyou very much. It is only the skill of the designers and illustraters that are able to rescue or adapt what AI is generating. And I am well aware that Illustrater is used for web and print. Personally I have been a pro graphic designer since 1997. I have every right to make a point and complain when I am paying a small fortune each year for products that now include very poor results. I am not the only person that feels this way and we have every right to stand up for originality and human creativity, we don't need AI it is worthless and pointless.

[Bobby Henderson]

Frankly, I don't want applications like Illustrator auto-generating perfect looking AI-based graphics. As I said earlier, it takes no talent or industry specific skills for someone to type a suggestion into a text prompt. What kind of pay should a "graphic designer" expect to earn cranking out "art" via auto-pilot? What value does that have?

Even without the AI stuff Adobe Illustrator would still be the best vector graphics application out of all others in the market. I can't do without it for my work. It has certain features not found in any rival application. Most major corporate branding assets are created using Illustrator. More third party plugins are made for Illustrator than any of its rivals (most other vector apps don't have an extensible architecture).

Like most any piece of software Illustrator can still be improved. There are certain features I'd like to see included sometime sooner than later. It's easy to participate in the Illustrator beta program or make feature requests. Illustrator has come a long way since the 1990's.

[default2rkbo39it64o]

I agree with everything you have said. I do think that adobe have made a mistake by adopting AI functions and I don't want to see or use them, adobe have again put the prices up this year when they are including AI that is not fit for purpose and talented creatives don't need AI. My initial post was complaining about the poor quality of the AI results, and the only reason I used it was to see for myself how bad it was, I have no intention of using those features moving forward.

[Bobby Henderson · Accepted solution]

Unfortunately the business world is going gaga over "AI." So I think Adobe has no choice but to take part in this "race" -even if the race could really be about race to the bottom economics. One of the main reasons why business people are so infatuated with "AI" is its potential to eliminate employees. They won't phrase the goal like that. They beat around the bush using terms like "creating efficiencies." Whether it's automated machinery or a software bot that duplicates office worker tasks or even a bot that writes code the whole thing is about boosting profits by cutting staff.

Too many of these business people think job cuts happen in a vacuum. They don't look at the bigger picture effect. Everyone of these companies is trying to sell product to someone else. In order for the consumer to be able to buy anything that consumer has to be gainfully employed, earning a big enough paycheck to have discretionary income left over after basic expenses to be able to buy stuff. If enough humans get their jobs down-sized, out-sourced or just plain eliminated it tanks the rest of the economy. Math is math. There is no getting around that.

As for Adobe raising prices, I think that's a result of prices going up on everything. Heck, I get angry most times I visit the grocery store. The only bright side I see to high food prices is it makes it easier for me not to buy certain junk foods, like potato chips. Adobe's headquarters is in San Jose, a city whose living costs are outrageously extreme. I don't even understand how service industry workers can survive in that region. They're not paying fry cooks at In-N-Out Burger $50 per hour.

[leonr26799205]

I am infuriated on a daily basis that Illustrator prompts me to try generative AI while I'm working. Adobe has complete disdain for their userbase. I do not want to use the stolen work of other illustrators to do my illustrations for me. That's not why I pay for this software.  

[Monika Gause]

Are you referring to the contextual menu bar? You can turn it off in the Window menu.

If you want to bring the message to the Illustrator engineers, please post there: https://illustrator.uservoice.com 

This here is the community forum. 95% of participants aren't even staff.

[MarioCada]

I’m fascinated by how poorly this feature performs. Many people seem to reject AI’s involvement in creative content creation software entirely, and I don’t quite understand why. AI-generated content is largely ineffective at the moment, so the hostility toward it feels excessive.

Even the simplest concepts are misunderstood by the engine, leading to random, often useless outputs. But it’s not just about the results - the entire AI-driven creative process is flawed. Imagine having an employee on your phone whom you can only communicate with via voice - no screen sharing, no visual references. On top of that, you can never build on previous conversations; instead, you must refine your initial text repeatedly in hopes of getting a better outcome. No one would tolerate such an inefficient workflow in real life.


Bobby Henderson -> "..with "AI" is its potential to eliminate employees": This is a process mankind follows for thousands of years. I do not longer call someone to connect me to another person via telephone: A computer does that for me. Hundreds of examples could be added..

[leonr26799205]

If it's normal to expect jobs to be eliminated and artists are next in line why would any of us continue to buy adobe products? More importantly HOW would any of us be expected to pay for them? Adobe seem determined to eradicate their own customers.

[Bobby Henderson]

Bobby Henderson -> "..with "AI" is its potential to eliminate employees": This is a process mankind follows for thousands of years. I do not longer call someone to connect me to another person via telephone: A computer does that for me. Hundreds of examples could be added..

By @MarioCada

This case is quite different from the telephone replacing the telegraph. If the AI stuff starts working in the manner many business people are dreaming of Adobe could see a lot of its professional user base put out of work. The graphic design industry has already gone through various stages of de-profession-ism since the 1980's.

40 years ago when the tools were mostly analog-based it was very difficult for anyone to enter any graphic design field without some formal training, if not an actual degree. Today there are more people doing paid graphics work who are entirely self-taught than people who have any formal training. With standards being lowered the pay scales also declined.

Even without the factor of AI it's not easy for me to recommend this field as a career choice to any young person, especially if they want to be in it for money. If AI lives up to its potential it may very well de-value any kind of visually creative work. A graphic design job could end up earning no better than fast food worker pay. Anyone with a pulse could just press a button and make the computer spit out a design. No qualifications needed. AI is posing the same kind of threat to other white collar fields. So it's not just the artsy-fartsy types who should be concerned.

It's pretty easy to see the negative potential in AI just based on some posts in this forum. Someone will come here to complain about the text to vector feature not working like he wants because he's trying to instantly create a clip art library to resell yet not put any real work into it.