You’re standing outside the village hall, waiting for someone to unlock the door, and there it is on the noticeboard. Pastel sky. Soft, rounded illustrations of bunting. Hand-drawn-ish lettering that leans slightly too far to the right. A crowd of tiny figures who all appear to be holding something that isn’t quite an ice cream. You can’t say exactly what’s wrong with it, but you know, instantly, that nobody drew this.
That poster is everywhere now. Summer fetes, church jumble sales, school fundraisers, the pub quiz. Same palette, same warmth, same faint wrongness. And the internet has noticed. Threads on Hacker News, complaints in marketing forums, a Fast Company piece about a designer fixing AI posters, and a local news story about a contest where the winning poster contained the usual AI image errors, spotted only after it won.
The common reaction is to ban the whole thing. People in r/marketing put it plainly: humans made flyers for a very long time before AI, and using it isn’t a requirement for running a business or staying alive. Fair point. But I want to make a slightly different one, because I think the poster problem is one of the clearest windows we have into how these tools actually work.
Bad posters aren’t an AI problem, they’re a stopping problem
When someone on Hacker News set out to show that AI posters don’t have to be horrible, the underlying claim was simple. The model isn’t the reason the poster looks bad. The reason is that whoever made it stopped at the first output.
This is the single most common mistake I see from people new to AI tools, and it’s completely understandable. You type a description, something appears in eight seconds, and it looks finished. It has colours. It has lettering. It has a shape that resembles every other poster you’ve ever seen. Your brain files it under “done.”
But the tool didn’t decide it was done. You did. What came out was a first draft dressed up in the costume of a final product, and that costume is the genuinely tricky thing about image generators. A bad first draft written in text looks like a bad first draft. A bad first draft rendered as a polished pastel illustration looks like a poster.
Why hands and lettering give it away
You don’t need to know the mathematics to understand the failure pattern. These systems are extremely good at the overall vibe of a thing and noticeably weaker on the fiddly, rule-bound details. Broad composition, colour mood, general style, all strong. Correct number of fingers, text that spells actual words, a chair with a sensible number of legs, less so. The vibe carries the image far enough that people accept it, and the details are what betray it later, sometimes after a contest has already been judged.
What the designers are actually doing
The interesting part of the Fast Company story isn’t that a human designer fixed AI posters. It’s what “fixing” means. It isn’t regenerating with a cleverer prompt. It’s the ordinary work of design: setting real type instead of melted pseudo-lettering, establishing a clear hierarchy so the date and location are the first things you read, cutting the clutter, fixing the errors, and choosing something other than the default pastel that every other flyer in town is now wearing.
That’s the whole lesson. Human creativity still produces better results than the model working alone, and skilled people can take a mediocre generated image and turn it into something genuinely good. The tool supplies raw material fast. A person supplies judgement, and judgement is the part that was always the hard bit.
A practical way to use these tools without embarrassing yourself
If you’re the volunteer who’s been handed the fete poster this year, you don’t need design school. You need a slightly different habit.
- Treat the first output as a sketch, never a deliverable. Ask what you’d change if a person had handed it to you.
- Never let the tool write your text. Add the date, time, place and price yourself, in real type, where you control the spelling.
- Zoom in on hands, faces, objects and background details. That’s where the giveaways live.
- Make one deliberate choice the model wouldn’t make. A different colour. A bolder headline. Anything that breaks the default look.
- Show it to someone who wasn’t involved and ask what the poster is for. If they hesitate, the hierarchy is wrong.
Do those five things and your poster stops being generic. Skip them and you’ve produced yet another pastel bunting scene with suspicious ice creams.
The people complaining about AI posters aren’t really objecting to the technology. They’re objecting to the absence of effort, and they’re right to. A generator gives you a starting point remarkably cheaply. What it can’t give you is the decision about whether the result is good enough, and that decision has always belonged to a person standing in front of the noticeboard, looking properly.
🕒 Published: