Is the gap between creator standards and audience needs widening?

I was reading out of a children's book the other day, when a sailboat illustration caught my eye. At first glance, I was delighted - finally, someone had drawn a boat that actually looked like a real sailboat! They'd drawn a 7/8 fractional rig, included the reinforcement at the head of the mainsail, and several other technical details that really had me convinced.
​
But when asked to read the story for a second or third time, I started to notice more details. The forestay was so loose the mast would collapse backward. The passangers watching seals with binoculars looked like they were standing in chest-deep holes in the deck. One good wave would flood the salon and sink the whole thing.
​
But of course, the kids audience of this book doesn't care. Why should it? The illustration serves its purpose perfectly - it tells the story, sparks imagination, and looks "sailboat" enough to work.
​
This got me thinking about our ongoing debates around AI-generated content. We hear a lot about how AI video "isn't there yet" or how audiences will reject subpar quality. And sure, the tools aren't up to creating a full Hollywood blockbuster (yet, if ever). But are we sometimes producing content at quality levels that exceed what the particular viewing contexts actually require?
​
​Doug Shapiro wrote a thoughtful piece called "Quality is a serious problem" that touches on how audience definitions of "good enough" are shifting. Just as that sailboat illustration works perfectly for its intended audience, AI tools might already be hitting the mark for contexts where we've been over-engineering our approach.
​
Sometimes the forestay doesn't need to be perfectly tensioned. Sometimes the story is more important than the technical accuracy.
​
What's your take? Are there areas where we might be working "too hard" for things our audiences don't notice?

Have a great day!

- Nick

Nick Dorra

Say hi 👋 on Linkedin​
🤝 Book a meeting via video or f2f to chat more