A generative artist describes discovering that people had used LLMs to replicate their generative algorithm with remarkable speed and accuracy, raising fears about losing their competitive advantage and online identity. They argue that sharing techniques now invites automated imitation, and discuss the spectrum of AI use in generative art while setting personal boundaries such as authoring their own code and using LLMs mainly as a research aid.
The author recounts receiving an AI-generated "I Voted" sticker in 2026 that was cluttered and contained garbled text, contrasting it with well-designed stickers from places like South Carolina, Michigan, Kentucky, Albany, Louisiana, and New Orleans, while noting Denton, Texas also uses AI-generated stickers. The piece argues that such small AI annoyances accumulate until AI becomes normalized, and that society is currently negotiating where its AI lines are drawn.
A test of two flyer prompts run three times each in Claude Design, Canva, Moda and Grafista found that the first three tools returned one layout per prompt in different colours, while Grafista returned six distinct designs. The article attributes the repetition to how generative models predict the most likely output, and says steering away from it requires a detailed prompt written in a designer's vocabulary. Grafista instead starts each design from a Blueprint, a visual reference, rather than a prompt.
The author, who has run a home haunted attraction since 2005, describes encountering low-quality AI art, including an image with the Gemini diamond logo, at his first haunt of the year. He argues AI has spread into haunt flyers, props, projections and merchandise—citing Kennywood, The Darkness, AtmosFX, Knott's Berry Farm and Queen Mary Dark Harbor—and that this undercuts the originality and physical craft that make haunts distinctive, even as non-generative AI is used behind the scenes for prop timing and safety planning.