> Another factor is how these logos are created. Important corporate decisions involve many stakeholders. The result is often the safest, most inoffensive option, the average of everyone's opinions. In design meetings at AI companies, conversations probably sound like:
> ...
> No single person suggests making a logo that resembles an anus, but when everyone's feedback gets incorporated, that's what often emerges. Risk aversion in corporate environments naturally pushes designs toward familiar, "safe" territory, which apparently means anatomical openings.
There's hope! If you're a stakeholder in a logo design meeting, be sure point out the circular proposals look like anuses.
Also I hate all those "bold, sans-seif" logos. What they hell are they thinking? Those companies should just all change their name to "Company," too.
what can be seen now, can not be made unseen after! I never thought about this.. I already guessed myself, why there's a planet called Uranus, but no Myanus. This is cleary a systematic naming fraud. And now also the systematic visual-polution fraud with logos :)
lol, obviously, but there's also definitely part of me that thinks this would've worked better as a bsky post than a whole serious-sounding blog analysis. The core complaint is made explicit in the postscript:
...let's not pretend there isn't a serious point here about the depressing sameness in modern design
I agree in some respects (e.g. the insane number of ChatGPT clones on the appstore), but I really don't think "AI companies like using circles" is an example of that. All these companies want a 1:1 logo for their favicons and app icons, and as the author rightfully points out, circles are very popular in the 1:1 world for a reason. In addition, a few of these are used as bases for Siri-esque "thinking" animations/buttons, which also naturally lends itself to circles.
To specifically pick on their examples of bad "Big AI company" logos, and how many already "embrace meaningful abstraction":
1. Gemini is a twinkling star, and it's just not a circle at all. Using curves isn't copying other people that use curves, that's one of two ways to draw a line!
2. OpenAI isn't just "corporate euphemism", it's three interlinking chain links. I'd say that's some pretty cool abstraction, personally!
3. Meta AI's logo (?) is obviously trash, so fair enough.
4. Grok is a black hole, which is invoking the metaphor of the Vinge's Technological Singularity (i.e. the point at which an intelligence explosion leads to unforeseeable outcomes, likened to how the center of a black hole is somewhat unforeseeable in current physics).
6. "Apple Intelligence" isn't a real product and is definitely copying OpenAI's "interlocking shapes" metaphor, but I'd also say it's more triangular than circular when you really look at it. To its small credit, it definitely seems built with animation in mind.
7. Finally, Anthropic was founded by OpenAI engineers worried about existential risk, and the logo reflects that -- AFAIK, it's depicting an intelligence explosion. The parallel to Vonnegut has been noted before and is funny for a moment, but IMO "asterisks are banned" isn't a design principle to take at all seriously because of that one joke.
Remember, the alternative to this "butthole" phenomenon is a much, much darker world, one that's already in place for smaller companies: a world where every logo is a slightly-stylized brain!
I agree with most of it, but I also don't see why all blog posts have to be serious. I had fun researching and writing it, and I don't pretend it's a scientific masterpiece.
Would or could a technological singularity lead to a gravitational singularity?
Assuming the technological singularity is always trying to gain more information and quicker than it did the previous clock cycle, I would think it would both expand out to grasp new information as well as make what it has more dense.
Information presumably takes up some space and has some mass. Ever increasing the amount of it and confining it in a smaller and smaller volume of space would I think lead to a gravitational singularity.
I'm guessing that's because "talking out of one's ass" [1] applies to current version of this technology more than the others?
1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/talk_out_of_one%27s_ass
This is flagged and I kinda get it, but this a genuinely correct observation.
Thank you, sir.
Wow that Brazilian institute... surely they knew?
Like the spinning silhouette of a ballerina, you can make it spin both ways.
You can see a sun with a house, and you can see a butt with an object penetrating.
But admittedly, it's pretty hard to unsee the butt once you think about it.
Surely some people knew right away the moment the logo came out of the designer's office.
This one boggles my mind. But it's a real logo, so there were at least a few people with decision power who didn't know and let it happen.
> Another factor is how these logos are created. Important corporate decisions involve many stakeholders. The result is often the safest, most inoffensive option, the average of everyone's opinions. In design meetings at AI companies, conversations probably sound like:
> ...
> No single person suggests making a logo that resembles an anus, but when everyone's feedback gets incorporated, that's what often emerges. Risk aversion in corporate environments naturally pushes designs toward familiar, "safe" territory, which apparently means anatomical openings.
There's hope! If you're a stakeholder in a logo design meeting, be sure point out the circular proposals look like anuses.
Also I hate all those "bold, sans-seif" logos. What they hell are they thinking? Those companies should just all change their name to "Company," too.
I think they look more like eyes or portals. I guess you see what's on your mind.
Even the Claude one? :)
Like the Greendale Flag
Claude wins this competition too.
It surely has to be intentional
I can't see how it wouldn't be intentional. A weird choice though.
please put funding here?
And when you put the funding, that's where the valuation is coming from.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
what can be seen now, can not be made unseen after! I never thought about this.. I already guessed myself, why there's a planet called Uranus, but no Myanus. This is cleary a systematic naming fraud. And now also the systematic visual-polution fraud with logos :)
lol, obviously, but there's also definitely part of me that thinks this would've worked better as a bsky post than a whole serious-sounding blog analysis. The core complaint is made explicit in the postscript:
I agree in some respects (e.g. the insane number of ChatGPT clones on the appstore), but I really don't think "AI companies like using circles" is an example of that. All these companies want a 1:1 logo for their favicons and app icons, and as the author rightfully points out, circles are very popular in the 1:1 world for a reason. In addition, a few of these are used as bases for Siri-esque "thinking" animations/buttons, which also naturally lends itself to circles.To specifically pick on their examples of bad "Big AI company" logos, and how many already "embrace meaningful abstraction":
1. Gemini is a twinkling star, and it's just not a circle at all. Using curves isn't copying other people that use curves, that's one of two ways to draw a line!
2. OpenAI isn't just "corporate euphemism", it's three interlinking chain links. I'd say that's some pretty cool abstraction, personally!
3. Meta AI's logo (?) is obviously trash, so fair enough.
4. Grok is a black hole, which is invoking the metaphor of the Vinge's Technological Singularity (i.e. the point at which an intelligence explosion leads to unforeseeable outcomes, likened to how the center of a black hole is somewhat unforeseeable in current physics).
5. Perplexity's logo is an abstraction of the pages of a book -- the designers actually have a nice blog post here: https://medium.com/smith-diction/branding-perplexity-ai-70eb...
6. "Apple Intelligence" isn't a real product and is definitely copying OpenAI's "interlocking shapes" metaphor, but I'd also say it's more triangular than circular when you really look at it. To its small credit, it definitely seems built with animation in mind.
7. Finally, Anthropic was founded by OpenAI engineers worried about existential risk, and the logo reflects that -- AFAIK, it's depicting an intelligence explosion. The parallel to Vonnegut has been noted before and is funny for a moment, but IMO "asterisks are banned" isn't a design principle to take at all seriously because of that one joke.
Remember, the alternative to this "butthole" phenomenon is a much, much darker world, one that's already in place for smaller companies: a world where every logo is a slightly-stylized brain!
I appreciate the serious analysis and reply!
I agree with most of it, but I also don't see why all blog posts have to be serious. I had fun researching and writing it, and I don't pretend it's a scientific masterpiece.
I had fun writing the reply too. I enjoyed the piece, regardless! Certainly don't take my disagreement as a reason not to do more shenanigans :)
Because their output is shit? Just kidding!
In retrospect, this seems mean. Sorry!
Hal 9000 mimicry
Form follows function, I guess. (c)
(from lobste.rs)
Enshittification
[dead]
this article cements the fact graphic design is a total joke
It's a nod to the singularity (a.k.a. a black hole). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity. That's all these AI people can think about. Makes sense to me. It's near!
Would or could a technological singularity lead to a gravitational singularity?
Assuming the technological singularity is always trying to gain more information and quicker than it did the previous clock cycle, I would think it would both expand out to grasp new information as well as make what it has more dense.
Information presumably takes up some space and has some mass. Ever increasing the amount of it and confining it in a smaller and smaller volume of space would I think lead to a gravitational singularity.
Or just a plain ol' trip down memory lane with goatse.
Downvoted for being the only accurate comment in this submission. HN is now full of simpletons.
Grok says: `"When a question reveals more about the asker than they might intend, it’s often called a "loaded question" or a "revealing question."`
Ah, the ol’ “I’m rubber and you’re glue, anything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you”