yeah, interesting. i mean the pricing isn't too far out of line, logos can be a lot of effort, especially if the designer is listening and following up, doing the research etc. the process ideally is a lot more than just the design, you're paying for a process that someone has engineered and that may or may not be worth the cost. typically for a business the cost quoted is very reasonable. for a band struggling to release an album, yeah i see the issue. anyway, there are a lot of cheap options out there (which in a lot of cases i don't think is fair to the artist, but the issue of cost cuts both ways and i'm sympathetic to that) like fiverr or whatever. but honestly, if ai art serves the purpose, then great, i don't fault you at all for it. i think if it helps people in your case that's great, but i don't think it's the way ai generative content will be used by and large. i wouldn't be surprised to see ai generated billboards and the like in the near future.

but i do think your question plays into my earlier point that ai art serves to cut costs in areas where true 'artistic' expression is perhaps not needed. if you feel that your band is the music and not the art (which you're not necessarily wrong about) then yeah why does it matter whats on the cover? you could even do the name in sharpie. but as a designer i can tell you why you probably care—capitalism and the inherent competition. you have to compete in a market saturated with album covers that are done in painstaking detail. it's the same reason a logo is valuable, it gives the IMPRESSION of legitimacy. it's the entire reason my skill set is VALUABLE instead of admired. which is an issue with capitalism, not art, or design or whatever. capitalism continues to pervert art and design into corporate tools rather than modes of human expression. do i believe design is a legitimate form of artistic expression? maybe, you could argue the process is a form of art and i would be flattered to hear that, but in general, no, not really. design is a functional form of 'art,' if you wanna call it that. i learned design so that i could serve a market of businesses that approach 'art' (if that's even what i do anymore) from a profit incentive. they want me to know that the 'art' i design, or maybe more concisely, the content i create, is going to pay off. it's in service of capital. which i believe is what ai generative content will be mostly used for. i might once in a while need to generate an image i might not normally be able to create (or have the skill, means, etc to create) but in general the process of generating ai art will undermine my work and my industry. which is okay on one level. it IS progress, that's undeniable. and progress is unstoppable, it's silly to try, you can only adapt. but within the system i exist in, it is a potentially deadly advance and i know that it's not me and my fellow artists who are reaping the most benefit (and sure, we reap some degree of benefit insofar as it helps us streamline our work/expression) but it is the capitalist class that will use this to further profit and deepen the divide between authentic human experience and manufactured content. maybe that's a little dramatic, but on some level i feel it's true. either way, like i said there is nothing truly to do except adapt but i will be vocal about it while the change happens, apparently.