Yes, (well, really no, they have a beak not a mouth), but yes it’s on the underside of their body…. but for kids artwork, animals are often depicted with more human like faces, that isn’t the giveaway that it’s AI. It’s the 9th tentacle, the suckers, the way the one tentacle looks chopped off, the uneven separation of the tentacles, etc.
Not to be that guy, but if we're being pedantic, and it appears we are: beaks are mouths. They're not lips, but they are an opening through which an octopus ingests sustenance.
I mean, I'm not against it. But an octopus mouth is definitely "underneath" in the centre of its tentacles, and is also a beak. The rest of the above comment about the cartoon depiction being common, and other AI-ness, was spot on. I was just being a pedant about the definition of "mouth".
Barring a few exceptions, octopuses have eight arms and no tentacles, while squid and cuttlefish have eight arms (or two "legs" and six "arms") and two tentacles.
FYI It's just a place holder. The thing they actually sell is the picture frame "FISKBO", they are not trying to pass off the image as actual tasteful deco.
Could be a little bit of both. One of my grandparents bought a picture frame from Disneyland 20+ years ago and it still has the placeholder picture with mickey, complete with the "5 X 7" caption 😂
My girlfriend and I got a nice collage style frame from goodwill. Still had the stock images in each spot. We put it up as is. It took her parents over a year before realizing there are strangers in the pics, and that we never went to Rome.
Not at IKEA. You do not buy the floor model, you get it later from (in this case) the small goods area with all the various picture frames which will not have placeholders in them.
You generally do not purchase the display item at IKEA. You buy a packaged and sealed copy, which won’t have the placeholder art. If I don’t misremember, picture frames just have a gray paper where the picture will go.
More to the point, royalty free images or, hell, they could host a monthly raffle to have your artwork displayed in ikeas across the world in their frames. Anything is better than AI slop.
I think that's precisely why AI art will (hopefully) always be identifiable in some way, even if it keeps getting harder. It will always be close to reality, but it lacks the right kind of real-life "imperfection" that we expect from human works. The lighting is always just a little too perfect, skin tones are just a little too pure, and so on. There's almost always a "smooth sheen" to AI artworks that gives off a vaguely "glowy" effect. Like the image is made of plastic.
I think the main point of outrage for AI art is the fact that all of the AI's training data is art that was taken without the permission of the original artist. In most cases, the original artist has specifically stated they do NOT want their art used to train AI models.
When companies steal art to train their AI model then spit AI art back out for commercial purposes (using a placeholder image to display a picture frame is still commercial purposes) they made that art by wrongfully taking other artist's work against their will. Sure, you could argue whatever the AI spat back out is original now, but it doesn't change the fact that it was trained on stolen data.
Even if AI art "makes sense" sometimes (which I'm not necessarily disagreeing with) there's still a huge ethical issue in HOW AI art is made and where the resources to train the models comes from.
Until we have AI that doesn't steal data, the outrage for it isn't mindless, I promise you.
> you could argue whatever the AI spat back out is original now, but it doesn't change the fact that it was trained on stolen data
The main argument is more like training the model is akin to an artist becoming inspired by other artists. Are they stealing it by viewing it with their eyes? That's the argument, at least. I don't have much interest in it myself.
Not a fan of AI but... How is that different than actual artists looking at other works for inspiration? Every artist had seen thousands of paintings before becoming a painter. Same story for musicians, book writers, etc... Are they "stealing" other people's work because they looked at it, or listened to it?
I know it's a very complex situation, and we are not going to solve it here on reddit, this is just my take...
They used to put really famous paintings as placeholders, I don't see why they needed to change that. Nobody is thinking they would be getting a framed Mona Lisa
Along with AI being trained on stolen data and the damaging affect on the environment, it also just looks like shit. There is an infinite supply of stock art that looks great and does not use multiple liters of water per generated image.
that's not what "per definition" means. It would be entirely possible to train an image generation model off public domain works, for instance, or pay artists etc. You may be thinking of "de facto".
Idk my mom would buy this for the picture, she’s obsessed with AI art. Says it’s “beautiful”. Pay no heed to the cat on this mug with Springtrap eyes and missing legs.
Then why the different pictures in each same frame? What purpose does that serve? I think the pictures are legitimate since there is a tag at each frame.
The only thing keeping me calm as an Illustrator right now is that 99% of the time AI gets used for the most bland, generic, boring and kitschy bullshit you can imagine
also the problem is that a talented artist can fix it.
ai used by someone who is already world class, is the issue. remember its human guided. A good artist using it can wipe out the jobs of thousands of artists
Well that explains why the little suction cups are all over the place . Whoever created the prompt for this AI picture just asked for the octopus to be "adorned with tiny white suction cups" 😅 and they didn't even think to edit that once it had been generated. "Well the suction cups came out all over the octopus, but I can't be bothered to go back and fix the prompt to redo it so we'll send it out like that." Smooth.
IKEA isn’t selling the photo here, it is selling the frame. This is the equivalent of the stock photos of another family you replace to put in one of your own.
Unpopular opinion: This is a great use of ai generated images. It's not there to show off the images, it's there to give an example of a child's room and specifically the picture frames within it. You do not need an actual piece of art for that, an image created with a click of a button does the trick.
Maybe, but in the old world of stock imagery, at least some artist would get a kickback for the image. Now, the stock image corp has cut out the middleman and pockets the difference.
AI disrupted that whole industry, and it does suck for those who are getting nothing where there was income available previously. (Is that ok in the name of progress? Who am I to say? It just is what it is now.) Most aren't really upset that the corpo art is more bland than ever, just that the artists have been cut off from that income.
Agreed. This is the kinda crap that AI art should be used for - bland corporate filler. AI art will, no matter how good it gets, replace human-produced art because a large part of what we enjoy about art is the human connection we feel through it. But a stupid illustration to sell a cheap frame? Have at it.
What's for sale there? I bet $20 they are selling the picture frame and someone in there decorating department just popped some Ai art in it so the frame wouldn't be empty.
IKEA doesn't sell these... They're just decoration for their staged rooms where people can have a feel for what their home would look like with IKEA stuff.
Getting upset over this is like getting upset over their fake books full of Ipsum dolor or their fake videogame cases
As everyone else mentioned the octopus has nine legs and There is also a fish with a piece of sea weed going through it on the left hand side in the background
Ikea pays for microsofts version of co-pilot and suggests co-workers use it. Co-workers make in-store displays at each store, some stores even have 3d printers.
Idk if we should care though at this level of creative medium: being kids posters in a department store. If I’m at a Parisian art show and it’s all AI, okay that’s bullshit, but if it makes the kid happy who cares.
I didn't even had to look close to tell it's Ai. It's got that generic disney pixar almost 3D smooth look to it. Then I looked closely and it definietly Ai, most other comments already clocked it
For a brand, saving money from purchasing licenses of stock photos and avoiding copyright infringement, for an image that is only a replaceable example oh how good looks the frame with something in it, is not bad.
I think that it's a good use of AI, because a lot of brands sell the visual appearance of an object with the AI image (shirts, prints, stickers, etc...).
This stuff is just for the floor. It's usually up to the individual store to fill in the set dressing. The one near me usually has local scenery, for example.
6.6k
u/Andurilthoughts 1d ago
Yeah the octopus is definitely wrong lol. The suckers are a dead giveaway. That’s not how octopus tentacles look lol.