Artificial Intelligence Poster Images Under Fire: Amazon Prime’s Documentary Art Draws Criticism

I’m not entirely opposed to the use of AI art. Much like an airbrush, Photoshop, or even a Sharpie on drywall, it’s merely another instrument available for creating art. It’s a powerful instrument, undoubtedly, but fundamentally just a tool. It serves well for initial stages of a project, perhaps extending a photo background for a larger composition, or rapidly exploring ideas. However, utilizing it to produce final results independently, without the direction of a human artist, misses the point. This appears to be exactly what Amazon Prime has done recently, at least judging by the on-screen artwork for the documentary Racing Through Time. The Artificial Intelligence Poster Images used are so noticeably poor that they attracted significant attention from communities like Reddit’s r/formula1 forum. It serves as a stark reminder of AI art’s limitations, stemming from the core fact that, currently, AI fundamentally lacks genuine understanding.

The resulting outcry has been quite substantial, which I view as a healthy reaction, akin to a horse rejecting poor quality hay. I believe I borrowed that analogy from Orwell’s 1984, which is fitting since I know little about equine dietary preferences. Nevertheless, the core idea holds true: people instinctively recognize something amiss with these entirely AI-generated images, and they are correct to call them out. Because, frankly, they are substandard.

The reaction has been widely reported online, which is somewhat surprising, as one might not initially consider this particularly newsworthy. It’s merely background art for an older documentary featured on Amazon Prime Video – hardly earth-shattering global news.

However, there’s a deeper aspect here because it involves AI generation, revealing both the limitations of AI technology and challenging the boundaries of what the public finds acceptable. Here is the primary image in question:

Main poster image for the Racing Through Time documentary on Amazon Prime, featuring AI-generated F1 cars

At first glance, it might seem acceptable. It depicts a line-up of F1 cars on a track. But upon closer inspection, the image quickly falls apart. Consider this car, for example:

Close up of a flawed AI-generated Formula 1 car from a documentary poster, showing structural inconsistencies

Again, a quick look suggests a modern F1 car. But then you notice the strange and confusing structure behind the driver, the peculiar lack of symmetry, a wing that seems entirely missing on the left side, and wheel camber that defies physics – numerous small oddities that collectively create a visual mess. Discussions around advanced AI topics, including the work of figures like Elon Musk and Artificial Intelligence, often highlight the complexity developers face in replicating real-world nuances that appear simple to humans.

Or what about this one?

Another example of a distorted AI-generated Formula 1 car in the documentary poster, appearing to have only three wheels

Look closely – is that a three-wheeled car? That’s certainly a bold design choice! Given that the legendary Tyrrell P34 successfully featured six wheels, perhaps three are half as effective? This image also displays considerable asymmetry, confusing mounting systems, and other illogical details.

AI-generated image showing bizarrely formed racing cars in the background of a poster, some appearing to have too many or malformed wheels

Perhaps attempting to compensate for the perceived tricycle design, this F1 car appears to have six wheels? Or something approximating six wheels? They look like wheels, but perhaps not entirely? The rear structures might be part of the wing? It’s incredibly difficult to discern. Furthermore, the helmet is strikingly egg-shaped, and the front wing boldly decides not to span the car’s entire width. As the view moves further down the grid in the image, the cars progressively less resemble actual F1 vehicles. What are those cars in the upper row? The bluish-silver one bears a resemblance to a forgotten 1990s Chrysler concept car, and the red one to its right evokes the idea of a Lincoln MKS coupé that never made it to production.

The core issue is that this is simply poor quality work. More specifically, it’s the type of poor quality that genuinely unnerves people because it resides within the “uncanny valley” phenomenon. While “uncanny valley” is typically used to describe human images that are almost, but not quite, right, I believe the concept applies to complex objects like cars too. This is because those of us with an interest in cars pay close attention to their specifics. We care deeply about their construction and the minute details that differentiate one car type from another, regardless of how trivial or mundane they might seem to more casual observers. In fact, the more obscure and specific the detail, the better.

AI fundamentally lacks this understanding because it doesn’t truly grasp anything. We label it “artificial intelligence,” but that label is misleading because its operational mechanism differs vastly from the human brain. It refines images from noise by drawing upon a massive dataset and comparing rapid iterations to produce something that visually approximates the target images referenced in the prompt. However, it has no intrinsic knowledge of what it is creating. It doesn’t recognize that these F1 cars look absurd because it doesn’t know what an F1 car is. It doesn’t understand what a tuna sandwich, a drill press, or a horse is either. It has no concept of accuracy, how things function, or what constitutes truth. Consequently, we cannot rely solely on AI for tasks requiring specific, accurate representation.

Cars, for instance, are too detailed and specific. I cannot instruct AI to generate an image of a 1971 Jensen Interceptor and expect a usable result for an article discussing that particular model. Let’s try that and see what happens! First, here’s a reference image of a ’71 Interceptor, sourced from the Beverly Hills Car Club:

Reference image of a real 1971 Jensen Interceptor car from Beverly Hills Car Club

Now, let’s ask the AI to create a 1971 Jensen Interceptor without providing that specific reference image and see the outcome:

Four AI-generated car images based on the prompt '1971 Jensen Interceptor' without a reference image

These are all visually appealing cars, and they certainly feel appropriate for the era, but none of them are Jensen Interceptors.

AI-generated car image based on the prompt '1971 Jensen Interceptor' without a reference image, resembling an Iso design

I find this one particularly interesting; it evokes the style of something Iso might have constructed in the late ’60s, but, again, it is not an Interceptor. Therefore, it’s useless if the goal is to illustrate an actual 1971 Jensen Interceptor. Such generated images are only viable for depicting fictional vehicles, which does happen occasionally, but most automotive content focuses on cars that genuinely exist, as those are the vehicles one can drive, experience, and interact with in the real world. Considering the rapid advancements in AI, discussions about the potential for generating complex and specific content like this often involve key figures like Elon Musk and AI.

Providing the AI with the specific reference image helped slightly, but not significantly:

Four AI-generated car images based on the prompt '1971 Jensen Interceptor' with a reference image provided, showing some inaccurate details

The front sections are somewhat more aligned with an Interceptor-like appearance, but the images remain impractical for a piece specifically about an Interceptor.

AI-generated car image based on the prompt '1971 Jensen Interceptor' with a reference image provided, featuring a cool design but not an accurate Interceptor

This is a cool-looking car, one that might even remind me of a Jensen Interceptor, but it isn’t one. Consequently, it’s unusable for accurate representation, suitable only for fictional contexts or potentially as generic background filler.

Even for less specific subjects, ones that don’t necessarily demand a reality-accurate depiction of a car, AI struggles to understand human concepts well enough to be truly useful. Take our header images, for instance. Recently, I expressed frustration about modern electronic door handles in an article and created this image for the top:

Header image for an article about modern electronic car door handles, showing a diagram with callouts

The image includes text, a car element, and a specific callout related to the topic. It’s not my best header image, but it functions effectively. Here’s the result when I asked an AI to generate an image for an article complaining about complex modern car door handles:

AI-generated image based on a prompt about complex car door handles, showing abstract and nonsensical shapes

What exactly is this? Perhaps some abstract interpretation of door handles? It is completely useless as a header image and is frankly difficult to look at. This demonstrates that while the overall AI landscape is evolving rapidly, with investments even in areas like best AI penny stocks, the practical application for nuanced or specific creative tasks remains significantly limited without human guidance.

My central argument is that, at our current technological stage, AI cannot serve as a complete substitute for human creativity and judgment. It can undoubtedly assist; it is an exceptionally powerful tool. However, the final outcome invariably requires scrutiny from knowledgeable human eyes. Without this oversight, we end up with situations like the flawed F1 poster art.

This isn’t merely a case of conventionally bad art. It’s arguably more offensive because it broadcasts a clear signal that the entity responsible for publishing this AI-generated content simply didn’t prioritize quality. Companies that engage in such practices seemingly value speed and low cost above all else, and it is positive that people are noticing and highlighting this. AI will only potentially displace human roles entirely if we collectively accept substandard outcomes, and we are not obligated to do so. In the broader context of the AI industry, even figures like Elon Musk discussing AI emphasize the complex ethical and quality control challenges as the technology advances.

Therefore, everyone should feel empowered to critique and hold Amazon accountable for this disappointing F1 image! It’s a necessary step for the integrity of creative work and the responsible use of AI.