AI Image Generators: Has the judgment day for Designers finally come?

In the past few years, the power of technology to help us adapt to change and keep us connected has never been more evident. The pandemic, in particular, was a catalyst for social and economic change that encouraged us to reassess the status quo and transform the way we work. A hot topic which has been dominating the technology agenda post-pandemic has been artificial intelligence - is it a friend or foe, a tool for efficiency or from the lens of a designer, their judgment day manifested into a neat little search bar?

One of the anxieties surrounding the meteoric rise of free AI technology is the potential displacement of visual designers and image makers. Within the field of design, the arrival of image generators such as Dall.E OpenAI, Midjourney, and the newly introduced AI image-expansion tool in Photoshop has understandably raised concerns. Sophisticated enough to generate imagery through prompts and able to mimic the style of everything from Old Masters’ paintings, to company logos, could these free tools render graphic designers redundant?

It is crucial to address these concerns with a balanced perspective. While AI-powered tools have undoubtedly revolutionised aspects of design and streamlined processes such as brainstorming and ideation, the role of human designers remains essential. These tools serve as aids to amplify designers' capabilities, and improve efficiency, rather than outright replacements. Designers bring artistic vision, intuition, and insight on human emotions to the work they produce. The understanding of nuance, and the cognitive biases within how people think and make decisions is a uniquely human skill, which is paramount in producing imagery that resonates with audiences on a deeper level.

Moreover, the reliance on AI-generated designs raises concerns about originality and the homogenisation of visual content. The danger lies in the dependence on AI algorithms, which sift through pre-existing imagery on the internet to generate results, which in the case of relying solely on AI generators to produce content such as logos and branding, could infringe upon intellectual property rights or perpetuate plagiarism.

AI technology offers immense potential to increase efficiency and expand the creative horizons of designers, however, proper implementation of AI within a design workflow is a steep learning curve that is not without its challenges. Through learning the best practices of using tools such as Dall.E, and Photoshop AI, while recognising their intricacies and limitations as glorified search engines, designers can leverage the potential of these tools within their work. Artificial Intelligence is a rapidly evolving field, and designers need to embrace the importance of continuous learning. They should be open to learning about new techniques, algorithms, and tools as they emerge. By investing time and effort in these areas, designers can use AI as the revolutionary tool it was designed to be, rather than view it as a malignant force.

Was Sunak right not to put the brakes on Braverman?

Suella Braverman has spent the past week battling accusations that she broke the ministerial code during her time as attorney general in 2022. To get you up to speed (although not as fast as Braverman), according to reports in the Sunday Times and Mail on Sunday at the weekend, Braverman asked civil servants to try and arrange a one-on-one driving awareness course after she was caught speeding.

The scrutiny that followed was not over the speeding offence itself, but over whether she breached ministerial rules by asking officials to help her with a private matter. Opposition parties were quick to call for Rishi Sunak to order an investigation into the claims, while Braverman’s Conservative peers sought to downplay the severity of the offence. Sir Edward Leigh even came out to say "what's wrong with this country, we used to have proper scandals about sex or money.”

Ultimately, Sunak has decided not to pursue an investigation, but was he right to not put the brakes on Braverman?

Several years ago this would have been more clear cut. The decision for a PM to stick by their minister used to largely depend on the severity of the ministerial breach. Through this lens alone, Rishi Sunak’s decision not to investigate the claims against Suella Braverman is relatively justifiable. While the accusations levelled detail an abuse of power, Braverman did end up paying the fine and taking the points. Sadly, there have been much more significant abuses of power in recent governments.

However, therein lies the issue. The Conservative party is facing the next election with record low levels of trust and integrity. Conduct in both the Johnson and Truss governments has left the Conservatives with a reputation of a party that likes to play fast and loose with the rules and faces little accountability for breaking them. When Sunak took over as PM he promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability” at every level of government and the general public are watching his decisions with a beady eye to see if he puts his money where his mouth is.

That said, the decision not to investigate the claims against Braverman arguably serves Sunak’s goal to mend the Conservative Party’s reputation better than ordering an investigation would. The British public has a short memory. If Sunak orders an investigation into Braverman’s conduct, what will follow is weeks of media coverage over her conduct. By refusing to do so, the matter will likely be forgotten in place of other breaking news - or perhaps another Tory scandal - by the end of next week. Additionally, an investigation and / or resignation could ignite the leadership positioning which already still plagues the party. As Sunak drives the Conservatives towards the 2024 General Election, the last thing he needs is for the party to veer off road once again.

How AI could shape our politics for years to come

The success of ChatGPT has flung AI to the forefront of popular discourse. While many marvel at the feats this new technology is able to accomplish, there are a plethora of reasons to be apprehensive of the future it will help forge. For one, jobs are at risk. A 2021 PWC report on behalf of the UK government estimates that up to 30% of UK jobs could be at risk of automation by 2040. White collar workers in industries like financial services and the legal sector, long hailed as the 'winners' of globalisation, find themselves facing an uncertain future. Their jobs, once seen as insulated from automation, are now in the crosshairs of AI-driven disruption. This disruption will cause demographic shifts that will shape policymaking for years to come.

Historically, the negative consequences of globalisation and automation have disproportionately affected blue-collar workers, contributing to political shifts and the rise of populist movements. The decline of the Rust-Belt gave America Donald Trump. The deprivation of the Red Wall gave the UK Brexit and Boris Johnson. Now, as AI encroaches further into the white-collar realm, a new political coalition of workers could emerge. Professionals in industries like the legal sector and financial services, may find themselves in a similar position to their blue-collar counterparts, facing job displacement and diminished prospects. This disruption will reshape political alignments and mobilise support for policies that address the challenges posed by AI. To an extent it has already begun to do so.

One policy solution that has begun to blossom in recent years is Universal Basic Income. Previously regarded as a radical idea, the notion of providing a guaranteed income to all citizens regardless of employment status has gained renewed relevance. By providing a safety net to individuals whose jobs may be displaced, UBI offers a path to alleviate economic anxiety and ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth, thus alleviating the personal economic pressures created by widespread job losses. Just last week, Deepmind Co-Founder Mustafa Suleyman cited the policy as a potential solution to the huge job losses his creation could help cause. Suleyman argued that governments will need to provide for citizens whose jobs are destroyed or who find their wages depressed. “That needs material compensation . . . This is a political and economic measure we have to start talking about in a serious way.”

The policy isn’t without its problems. The largest barrier is very obvious: how would it be financed? However, with AI set to contribute an extra 10% to the UK economy by 2030, in spite of the likely job losses, and with income inequality having widened since the pandemic, redistribution would not be impossible.

Societal change doesn’t have to be so dystopian, of course. At least in the short term, as AI actually complements rather than replaces these workers, working conditions could improve, accelerating the shift towards hybrid working and the potential for four-day work weeks.

However, with tech figures like Google’s ‘Godfather of AI’ echoing Oppenheimer as they are horrified by the irreparable societal harm their creations could cause, it is essential to think forward about how we will respond to this transformation, for better or worse. AI’s disruption will be as political as it is economic, and Universal Basic Income is just one potential answer to what is likely to become an era defining question: when machines do it better, what becomes of us?