You have 
1 Like
I see this with plenty of clients. The number one rule is that your brand needs to adhere to it’s guidelines. Be these visual, tone of voice or legal/compliance. Plenty of clients who as an agency we are encouraging the use of proprietary creative AI driven tools, always see the need to review, not just from a visual standpoint, the legal/compliance governence.
For instance, one Cancer charity we have, will not allow the use of AI generated people, be that in full, part of or even in the background of an image. Rightly so. Certain product based clients won’t allow AI versions of their products, but will allow backgrounds/video elements to be created in AI.
In my view RAFAC has a clear and distinct set of visual and brand guidelines, and these should be adhered to. As the majority of communicators at Sqn level are volunteers and may not have that level of expertise, the quality of the output varies dramatically. That’s to be expected. But…
AI does have the ability of creating content which is factually wrong (base level – uniform is wrong) to unforseen legal issues which can cause real reputational damage. The potential is greater.
I have no problem with people using AI at a Sqn to advertise certain local events – it saves time – we are volunteers after all. Communicating externally should be done with one eye on guidelines.
In my day job as a creative, I have to ensure all visual, tone of voice, and legal guidelines are stuck to to maintain brand consistency. RAFAC is no different to McDonalds in that respect. The quality has to be correct – the term AI slop exists for a reason and it always detracts from the core message of a comms piece.
A set of guidelines should be produced for external communications with regards to use of AI. Tools such as Claude is great for coming up with headline ideas, however visuals from chatGPT/nano banana/adobe firefly/photoshop shouldn’t be used for the reasons above. There’s enough assets available via sharepoint, and as communicators there isn’t a need to refresh creative for regular posts (climatic/seasonal etc) – creative fatigue isn’t a factor here.
My professional view is AI should be banned for external communications.
4 Likes
At first glance it’s fairly competent, however as others have pointed out, there’s plenty wrong with it – beret badges being the first.
sad to see an AI RAFAC logo being used
Oohhhh I didn’t look to closely at the ATC crest badge
2 Likes
That’s unforivgabll.
In principle, AI image generation of non-stock elements is possible. But to put out a mashed up version of a badge we have easy access to is just lazy and uncaring.
4 Likes
None of those pictures are AI Generated - do we even know if it is AI Generated itself?
1 Like
They are AI generated
the shooting image doesn’t comply with ACP50 for a start
1 Like
The Chinook looks pretty good. But the smaller photos at the bottom look pretty AI. But the quality is pretty bad on my end so unsure.
It’s the kids playing football without looking at the ball at all that tickles me
1 Like
You know what, I saw in on Socials and I thought that’s a great way of trying to increase uptake on a what is a short notice opportunity for a week long residential - whilst also providing an overview of the potential opportunity.
1 Like
Yeah, I don’t think this falls into the AI slop category. Frankly I cat at any issues with that Chinook. I wonder if this is part real part AI. Photoshop but using the AI tools.
It’s still AI though, and there’s still no RAFAC policy for it other than a HQ staff member saying not to use it.
4 Likes
I’m glad someone else mentioned “short notice”. My August has been booked up for about 6 months with family holidays and shooting at Bisley. Do they think that everyone is just sat at home waiting for the call?
I have squeezed in a day to take cadets flying and man a minibus.
1 Like
Yes. Are we allowed to do anything else??
1 Like
I always notice how AI can really struggle to replicate someone’s likeness, as you can see in this thumbnail.
Is it me, or does this thumbnail also show Nigel Farage looking a bit like Andrew M-W?
I’m not suggesting anything, I just did a double-take as it looked like Andrew had gone into politics!
1 Like
Regardless, that would be an instant “do not recommend this channel” from me.
3 Likes