I doubt it, because the process of thinking of phrases to feed dall-e is really the hard bit.

This is ok for a logo like this where it’s fair to say the base level expectation is not super creative. This logo is cool, but it doesn’t really stand out or make the product ver distinctive. If I am running a hobby or OS project that’s fine, but if I was investing a lot in sales/marketing then paying a real artist to make something interesting and novel is a rounding error.

> This logo is cool, but it doesn’t really stand out or make the product ver distinctive. If I am running a hobby or OS project that’s fine, but if I was investing a lot in sales/marketing then paying a real artist to make something interesting and novel is a rounding error.

Q: Are there really logos out there that are "interesting and novel" and that "stand out or make the product [..] distinctive"? Which ones?

EDIT: (perhaps more importantly) are there interesting, novel, distinctive logos that actually contribute to profitability?

tbf I think when it comes to big company branding it's the opposite.

A lot of GPT iterations of the design has left the article author with something which is quirkier than your average logo, but also looks like clipart and probably doesn't scale up or down well or work in monochrome. Which is fine for OSS. (He might get more users from blog traffic about using GPT-3 to design his logo than he ever could from any other logo anyway)

But when it comes to bigger companies, the design agency are the people that sit in meetings with execs persuading them that a well chosen font and a silhouette of a much simplified octopus will work much better ("but maybe the arms could interact with some of the letters etc etc, now lets discuss colours). The actual technical bit of drawing it is the bit that's already relatively cheaply and easily outsourced, and plenty of corporate logos are wordmarks that don't even need to be drawn...