Jennifer Thim
Connector Staff
AI flyers and posters. It seems like they are everywhere now, with this campus being no exception.
As someone on South Campus, I have only walked past two generic AI flyers on my way to O’Leary Library’s second floor. I have also noticed that these are coming from the school departments rather than the students. Despite the safe and friendly look of the images, they are not the most approved amongst students.
One criticism of the overall look of these posters is the heavily warm and saturated colors. So much so, that the tint of the colors almost resembles the color of urine; And let me clarify that is certainly not an original thought. Some students find it unappealing visually.
Besides colors, another giveaway of AI flyers is the unnecessary number of keywords and generic phrases to “fill in” space. The AI probably wants to come off as inspiring, but due to the irony of it being AI, the quotes come across as insincere.
Additionally, while I get that time-efficiency is a plus of AI, the urgency overrides the intentional process that is supposed to be valued here. Depending on the class, it reflects poorly on a student using generative AI to complete coursework. How is it different for our school departments? They are also breaking the principle of original work by taking advantage of algorithms that breach off other existing work. It is the loss of integrity that many students don’t approve of.
Meanwhile, I asked some friends over at North Campus what their experience with AI generated flyers have been. Clearly, there are two distinct kinds of posters around campus.
Unlike South Campus, the safe generic look was not an option for this picture. In fact, it most likely was a requirement for this to stand out as much as possible. The vibrant colors, exaggerated images and inside jokes suggest this was made to mess around with a specific group around campus, instead of anything serious. Though that does not take away from the fact that these are roaming around campus and being spotted by people outside the intended audience.
This does beg the question: are the students more responsible for the use of generative AI, or the faculty? And will these exaggerated images continue to be a trend around campus in the future?
AI is meant to evolve over time because people train it through their written prompts. That may be both a bad and a good thing. It means that I, individually, cannot stop students from generating absurd “AI slop.” It also means that with the more slop that they do make, someone out there is struggling to make their images not look like “slop.”
My point is that AI is flawed, and there are those who embrace those flaws, and others who will always try to outrun them. This is not me encouraging “AI slop” on campus but simply stating that it is being made. What should be prioritized, though, is the work of our students and faculty who put time and effort into informing us of campus events and resources.
