Your message is right that you can't spot AI, but from what I've seen professionals by large aren't using AI for from-scratch design.

I do have one way of telling: my wife's a designer, and she has many artist and designer friends so I see how they work first hand. AI is largely used for edits that need to be done quickly rather than from-scratch generation.

You talk about aesthetics but that's very secondary to communicating the precise thing you want to communicate. AI just isn't there.

> they imagine their a newly found ability to spot design generated with AI equates to them being able to spot bad design.

Who is imagining that?

> No, you silly geese. What you are able to spot is somebody using AI poorly. That's not you developing taste.

Again, I'm not really sure that the 'spotting AI' endeavour is always supposed to be a flex of someones own taste.

> You have absolutely no way of telling when a good designer created something entirely using AI (unless they are fine with you knowing that) and that has always been true.

I have trouble parsing your entire comment, but you have lost me completely at 'always been true'. I don't know how many hours your 'good designer' would waste on creating only with AI something able to fool everybody 2 years ago. It would surely be too many to be practical.

I think I'm going to call this "no true slopsman"

This is sometimes called the "Toupee Fallacy": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toupee_fallacy

It doesn’t look that bad. You can ach all you want, but that’s decent. It doesn’t have that AI look and it’s better than most posters I see for small events that are probably human designed.