The person running the contest wrote up something about how impressed she was with the creative use of AI.
The whole thing makes me sad - wouldn't the idea of this sort of thing be to scrounge up flags of obscure countries or make them out of paper and do a bit of arts and crafts to decorate your desk for the month? Instead people were just throwing 50 words into an AI system a few times and getting out a photo to submit.
Though its often much, much more effort to have judges who are also experts in the relevant field and give them the time to inspect in person the things to be judged. I don't think competitions will ever escape this "studying for the test" aspect fully. Its less actively harmful at least than the worst behaviors ive heard of (sabotage etc)
for a more programming related example, the sheer number of hackathons ive entered over the years where the winners had a relevant idea related to something in the news recently, and did basically nothing but a nonfunctional ui mockup of a crud app and won over teams that tried to make actually functional/fun things.
Note the pigs are numbered 1, 2, 1. And the gondola with a floating cable and another that terminates at a tent top.
What’s more interesting is that whomever the judges were didn’t seem to notice or care.
It was only until afterward were they upset
Notably, the zipline is all wacky, and two piggies are #1, probably more things I didn't notice at a skim?
I guess they didn't explicitly forbid AI, and it wasn't noticed until after the winner was selected, and now you can't "roll back"? It seems this was later added to the page:
> [...] we recognize that the use of AI has changed greatly over the last few years in ways we didn’t anticipate, and will be reevaluating the rules and processes for 2027, which will include prohibiting the use of AI [...]
July 7 2026 mirror of the page without that updated notice: https://web.archive.org/web/20260707145158/https://www.ohios...
Yes they did; the contestants must be at least 18 years old and residents of Ohio.
AI is neither.
Would it be within contest rules if an 19-year-old resident of Ohio served as an artistic director, giving suggestions to a 12-year-old from Kentucky who does the actual work?
When the poster contest was originally formed in 2024, the use of AI was permitted if explained as a part of the application process.
Since current US legal decisions indicate that genAI works are not copyrightable, this is troublesome for any organization that wants exclusive licensing for publicity. The State Fair would expect to incorporate their art winners into marketing, posters, and expect to strike down derivative works and other commercial uses.Not to mention that any Ai-entrant piece could be duplicated by any other entrant.
Think of all the poor typography around you. If you have a critical eye and care you can spot all sorts of bad choices: That's a preview of the future. AI-generated disposable art (posters, billboards, menus etc) that is orthogonal to the actual thing being sold will continue being the norm.
Most can’t _recognize_ GPT & Gemini posters.
Good point on preview of feature.
The fact that a clearly sloptacular image won first place seems to corroborate that indeed people do like it. Until people's tastes change and they learn to recognize and immunize themselves against slop, the models will continue to generate it.
On a positive note, I think I found her artistic portfolio online and it's absolutely beautiful. She can rest easy knowing she has 1000x the talent of the AI slop winner.
It looks AI-generated. All that detail. Short words in decorative fonts. AI doesn't know what "Midway" means in a fair context.
It's very similar to when the internet got big and those who knew how to use it had a significant advantage over those who didn't. AI hasn't really diffused to mass audience yet, at least not to the point of using it to the extent coders do like making custom and even one-off apps, using CC or Codex instead of ChatGPT directly since giving it terminal access makes in 100x more powerful than the web interface.
4th: https://cdn.saffire.com/images.ashx?t=ig&rid=OhioStateFair&i...
5th: https://cdn.saffire.com/images.ashx?t=ig&rid=OhioStateFair&i...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/sep/19/liberal-dem...
I'm not trying to be ignorant but I just can't imagine how it'd be in their shoes, I can't understand how AI slop still just works so many of these people, like it's been 3 years now, how is it possible that you'd be impressed or satisfied by this?
Imagine everyone just prompts the same AI and and the judge uses the same AI to judge them all. Why make a competition in the first place? Just prompt and create the damn poster and leave the whole community thing behind.
i think as the novelty wears off on the average person, it’ll probably be seen akin to stick figure drawings in the future
Not really worth putting effort into, but if I'd been in charge of the contest I simply wouldn't have awarded the prize, let alone decided to award 3 of them (initially it was only supposed to be one prize) for AI generated content.
But after a bit more time spent using it, and working with the culture, right-thinking and socially aware people really ought to develop a sense that what was superficially impressive is the same each time. The first poem is the same as the hundredth, the pictures all look the same. And they start to think about the lack of effort, the fact that anyone can "make" them, and that everyone has the same ideas, and they quieten down.
The only people left using it are the next generation of clueless/naive, and those who are shameless - trying to use it to grift the remaining clueless. Unfortunately the inherent speed of the technology makes these shameless few able to be VERY loud across the internet. I have yet to meet one in person
1. Can I benefit from it?
A Yes -> Do it
B No -> Don't do it
Variable: What is the risk of getting caught and is it worth risking?
Many or most people operate on this programming, AI or no AI.
I'm aware that social trust in some places is lower than others (and that im lucky enough to live in a place with high social trust), but I really don't think this is true. Though ruthless optimisers do exist, my experience suggests the idea that most people do this is laughable. I'd guess 1% or thereabouts. I think most people are kinda bumbling along on autopilot trying to make people happy and avoid others getting too mad at them without expending too much effort(not the same as minimizing effort) + without deviating too much from their routine.
Meditate a while, if you will, on the results of this poll: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0njd4e2evo
I met a few of the ruthless optimiser types back when I was in the startup world. They aren't too bad if you can keep them at arms length, predictable in their own way. But if they get some power over you or you have to spend a lot of time with them it can quickly become miserable.
Are they going to use it as an official poster or something? It is it just a side competition? Feels like they might come to regret spreading it. Both the first and the second smell rather strongly of AI, though the winner seems the most egregious.
Also seen in every FB post by small businesses as well as every garage sale post in my country
Rather than getting annoyed about it, maybe it could be a fun puzzle? Spot the AI glitches in this image.
Maybe do that contest before giving the award, though, among the finalists?
"Celebrating Ohio's and America's 250th birthday"
Ohio is 223 years old, having officially joined the United States as the 17th state in 1803.
AI is good at filling an image with shit, and bad at knowing when to leave space and what isn’t necessary.
Acknowledge? Admit? Recognize? Fine.
Accept? Not bother caring about? Don't demand people do that.
cnobody•53m ago