Apparently, in just 48 hours you can master writing, design, animation, logos, thumbnails, video editing, content planning, and marketing. Oh, and while you’re at it, maybe solve world peace too.

If learning any one of those properly takes months, how exactly are you supposed to “master” all of them in two days? Spoiler: you’re not. What you’re really getting is a surface-level tour of subscription apps. You’ll learn where the buttons are, not how to actually use it for your business.

So unless your goal is to be slightly less lost while clicking around MidJourney or Canva, “mastery” isn’t on the table.

And let’s not forget: most of the images and videos you create end up in the trash. That junk still cost you credits. So no, it’s not “basically free.” The only thing free here is the lie.

Here’s the logic nobody tells you: subscription tools are designed to bleed you slowly. They give you a taste with free credits, then once you’re hooked, you’re paying every month whether you actually use them or not. Miss a week? Tough luck — you still got billed. Need higher resolution or faster generations? That’s an “upgrade.” Want commercial rights? Another tier. Before long, you’re juggling three or four subscriptions and spending more than a Netflix binge habit.

So when someone tells you AI is “basically free,” what they really mean is: it’s free until the free trial ends and the bill hits, but it sure does make a great headline on their course sales page.

The line they love: “Look at all these images I made for almost nothing!” Yeah, because they used free trial credits. Once those are gone, you’re on the hook — $20 here, $40 there, plus extras for video, audio, or higher quality generations. Stack a few tools together for a year and you’re kissing $1,000–$2,000 goodbye. Enjoy your Invoice!

















And let’s not forget: most of the images and videos you create end up in the trash. That junk still cost you credits. So no, it’s not “basically free.” The only thing free here is the lie.

Here’s the logic nobody tells you: subscription tools are designed to bleed you slowly. They give you a taste with free credits, then once you’re hooked, you’re paying every month whether you actually use them or not. Miss a week? Tough luck — you still got billed. Need higher resolution or faster generations? That’s an “upgrade.” Want commercial rights? Another tier. Before long, you’re juggling three or four subscriptions and spending more than a Netflix binge habit.

So when someone tells you AI is “basically free,” what they really mean is: it’s free until the free trial ends and the bill hits, but it sure does make a great headline on their course sales page.

The line they love: “Look at all these images I made for almost nothing!” Yeah, because they used free trial credits. Once those are gone, you’re on the hook — $20 here, $40 there, plus extras for video, audio, or higher quality generations. Stack a few tools together for a year and you’re kissing $1,000–$2,000 goodbye. Enjoy your invoice!

Yeah, if by “edit” you mean chop some clips together, slap karaoke captions on top, and call it a day. That’s not true video editing, at all.

Real Post Production Video Editing is pacing, timing, rhythm, storytelling, and knowledge of cinematography - so you know which of your shots are good, fit well in the edit with the rest of your chosen clips and which ones belong in the trash. AI doesn’t know any of that. It just cuts by math and hopes you don’t notice your video now feels like a corporate training reel from 2004.

And don’t get me started on the SaaS apps. You drop your footage in, and out comes the exact same template everyone else is using — same fonts, same jump cuts, same stock B-roll. Congrats, your brand just got cloned into mediocrity.

And this isn’t me guessing. I’ve been video editing for 15+ years. I can tell you straight: A.I. edits are garbage. At best, you’ll get a dumb highlight reel. Guess what? A college kid will do that for free just to pad their résumé.

A.I. isn’t your editor. It’s a lazy intern you still have to clean up after.

Yeah, if by “edit” you mean chop some clips together, slap karaoke captions on top, and call it a day. That’s not true video editing, at all.

Real Post Production Video Editing is pacing, timing, rhythm, storytelling, and knowledge of cinematography - so you know which of your shots are good, fit well in the edit with the rest of your chosen clips and which ones belong in the trash. AI doesn’t know any of that. It just cuts by math and hopes you don’t notice your video now feels like a corporate training reel from 2004.

And don’t get me started on the SaaS apps. You drop your footage in, and out comes the exact same template everyone else is using — same fonts, same jump cuts, same stock B-roll. Congrats, your brand just got cloned into mediocrity.

And this isn’t me guessing. I’ve been video editing for 15+ years. I can tell you straight: A.I. edits are garbage. At best, you’ll get a dumb highlight reel. Guess what? A college kid will do that for free just to pad their résumé.

A.I. isn’t your editor. It’s a lazy intern you still have to clean up after.

Here’s the truth: A.I. is a draft machine, not a finishing tool. The outputs are starting points. Sometimes they’re decent, most of the time they’re riddled with errors. If you want anything usable for real business or client work, you’re going to polish it in Photoshop, Illustrator, or After Effects. Period.

And don’t even bring up AI inpainting as the “solution.” Through SaaS tools, inpainting is inconsistent at best, a total mess at worst. You’ll spend credits trying to patch a hand or fix a face, only to have the software introduce a new problem somewhere else. It’s not a reliable fix - it’s a coin toss that usually ends with you right back in Photoshop anyway.

Real deliverables need cleanup. They need retouching. They need resizing, exporting, formatting. Pretending AI magically skips all that isn’t just dishonest - it’s insulting to your intelligence.

Because let’s be real: if A.I. could truly “replace Photoshop,” Adobe’s stock would already be in the toilet. But it’s not. Why? Because professionals still need professional tools to finish the job.

So don’t fall for this lie. AI doesn’t eliminate Photoshop. It creates more work in Photoshop.

And not for nothing, but do you know what's better then Photoshop? The new version of Photoshop with A.I. integrated into it.

Sure. And when A.I. spits out a person with six fingers, melted eyes, and text that looks like it was written during a seizure, what are you going to use to fix it? Exactly - Photoshop. The same tool they swore you’d “never need again.”

Sure. And when A.I. spits out a person with six fingers, melted eyes, and text that looks like it was written during a seizure, what are you going to use to fix it? Exactly - Photoshop. The same tool they swore you’d “never need again.”

















Here’s the truth: A.I. is a draft machine, not a finishing tool. The outputs are starting points. Sometimes they’re decent, most of the time they’re riddled with errors. If you want anything usable for real business or client work, you’re going to polish it in Photoshop, Illustrator, or After Effects. Period.

And AI inpainting through SaaS tools is just as bad - It's inconsistent at best, a total mess at worst. You’ll spend credits trying to patch a hand or fix a face, only to have the software introduce a new problem somewhere else. It’s not a reliable fix - it’s a coin toss that usually ends with you right back in Photoshop anyway.

Real deliverables need cleanup. They need retouching. They need resizing, exporting, formatting. Pretending AI magically skips all that isn’t just dishonest - it’s insulting to your intelligence.

Because let’s be real: if A.I. could truly “replace Photoshop,” Adobe’s stock would already be in the toilet. But it’s not. Why? Because professionals still need professional tools to finish the job.

So don’t fall for this lie. AI doesn’t eliminate Photoshop. It creates more work in Photoshop.

And not for nothing, but do you know what's better then Photoshop? The new version of Photoshop with A.I. integrated into it.

At best, AI logos are mood boards. They might give you some rough inspiration. But they’re not deliverables, and they’re definitely not safe to hand to a client.

Graphic Design Beginners BEWARE: Don’t be the clown who tries to pass an A.I. logo off as professional work. You will get exposed. The printer will laugh. The art director will laugh. The client’s lawyer... they won't be laughing - they’ll just bury you in paperwork. And when that happens: You're shit out of luck kid.

Bottom line: AI doesn’t design logos. It spits out placeholders that real designers still have to rebuild from scratch. Pretending otherwise isn’t clever - it’s reckless, lazy, and borderline fraudulent. DON'T DO IT. And don't say nobody warned you.

No, it can’t. What you’re getting isn’t a logo - it’s clip-art trash parading as design.

Real logos aren’t just pictures that look good on your phone screen. They’re vector-based projects that can scale to a billboard without turning into Minecraft pixels. They need purchased or royalty free licensed fonts you can actually own the rights to. They need to  original enough to trademark without your lawyer having a heart attack. None of that comes out of these AI toyboxes.

What A.I. spits out are raster mockups - blurry edges, warped geometry, stolen typefaces, and shapes that crumble the second you zoom in. And anyone who’s opened Illustrator once in their life knows this: logos aren’t PNGs, they’re vectors. Full stop.

No, it can’t. What you’re getting isn’t a logo - it’s clip-art trash parading as design.

Real logos aren’t just pictures that look good on your phone screen. They’re vector-based projects that can scale to a billboard without turning into Minecraft pixels. They need purchased or royalty free licensed fonts you can actually own the rights to. They need to  original enough to trademark without your lawyer having a heart attack. None of that comes out of these AI toyboxes.

What A.I. spits out are raster mockups - blurry edges, warped geometry, stolen typefaces, and shapes that crumble the second you zoom in. And anyone who’s opened Illustrator once in their life knows this: logos aren’t PNGs, they’re vectors. Full stop.

At best, AI logos are mood boards. They might give you some rough inspiration. But they’re not deliverables, and they’re definitely not safe to hand to a client.

Graphic Design Beginners BEWARE: Don’t be the clown who tries to pass an A.I. logo off as professional work. You will get exposed. The printer will laugh. The art director will laugh. The client’s lawyer... they won't be laughing - they’ll just bury you in paperwork. And when that happens: You're shit out of luck kid.

Bottom line: AI doesn’t design logos. It spits out placeholders that real designers still have to rebuild from scratch. Pretending otherwise isn’t clever - it’s reckless, lazy, and borderline fraudulent. DON'T DO IT. And don't say nobody warned you.

VS

Artisse: Your A.I. Photographer
(online subscription)

My personally trained and consistent Image Model (FREE)

VS

VS

Sure. And by “perfect twin,” they mean an endless stream of lookalikes that barely resemble you from one picture to the next. One shot you’ve got six fingers, the next your face looks like it’s melting off, and if you run five prompts you’ll get five different “versions” of you — none of them consistent.

















Why? Because these subscription tools aren’t actually training a model on you. They’re pasting your selfies into a template, chewing through credits, and calling it a “clone.” That’s not a twin. That’s a cute gimmick with almost zero real-world business applications.

A real AI twin isn’t a mockup made by referencing a single picture you upload. It’s a trained image model — built on your own dataset of hundreds of images of you (not random snapshots), so the AI actually learns what you look like through and through, right down to that weird mole you hope no one notices. It’s trained on your own system, built to actually reproduce you. Not a knockoff. Not a blurry cousin. Not a new face every time you click generate. Anything less is just a parlor trick dressed up as a feature. This is the only way to truly deepfake yourself — or anyone else, for that matter (not that you’d ever do that, right?).

Here's Artisse "Your AI Photographer", which to be fair is a halfway decent A.I. twin subscription that, HOWEVER!, took soooo long, after tons of bad outputs, to give me 2 halfway decent pictures (that don't really look like me) versus my own private Image model that I trained with a 150 picture dataset of myself - that consistently creates "AI Me".

It’s trained on your own system, built to actually reproduce you. Not a knockoff. Not a blurry cousin. Not a new face every time you click generate. Anything less is just a parlor trick dressed up as a feature. This is the only way to truly deepfake yourself — or anyone else, for that matter (not that you’d ever do that, right?).

Here's Artisse "Your AI Photographer", which to be fair is a halfway decent A.I. twin subscription that, HOWEVER!, took soooo long, after tons of bad outputs, to give me 2 halfway decent pictures (that don't really look like me) versus my own private Image model that I trained with a 150 picture dataset of myself - that consistently creates "AI Me".

Why? Because these subscription tools aren’t actually training a model on you. They’re pasting your selfies into a template, chewing through credits, and calling it a “clone.” That’s not a twin. That’s a cute gimmick with almost zero real-world business applications.

A real AI twin isn’t a mockup made by referencing a single picture you upload. It’s a trained image model — built on your own dataset of hundreds of images of you (not random snapshots), so the AI actually learns what you look like through and through, right down to that weird mole you hope no one notices. 

Sure. And by “perfect twin,” they mean an endless stream of lookalikes that barely resemble you from one picture to the next. One shot you’ve got six fingers, the next your face looks like it’s melting off, and if you run five prompts you’ll get five different “versions” of you — none of them consistent.

They brag about cranking out viral YouTube thumbnails with A.I. like it’s magic. What they don’t tell you: they had to run dozens of prompts, burn through a pile of credits, scrap almost everything, and then finish the one half - decent result in Photoshop anyway.

Here’s the reality: thumbnails are strategic design assets. They’re not just “cool pictures.” A good thumbnail needs clean composition, clear hierarchy, legible text at tiny sizes, consistent branding, and the kind of polish that makes someone actually click. AI doesn’t give you that. It spits out chaos — warped faces, colors that clash, and text that looks like it was cut out of a ransom note.

















And even when you get something halfway usable, it won’t be on-brand. Your fonts, your colors, your style? Gone. Instead you’re stuck with whatever the model felt like that day. Which means you’re back in Photoshop, rebuilding it from scratch if you actually want it to perform.

That’s why pros still hire designers or spend hours tweaking thumbnails by hand — because thumbnails aren’t just about grabbing attention, they’re about grabbing the right attention and converting it into clicks that matter. AI shortcuts skip that entirely.

So yeah, sure — AI can get you a thumbnail. If you’re fine with your channel looking like every other amateur who trusted “A.I. magic” to do design. But if you want something that actually converts, you’re editing. Always.

And even when you get something halfway usable, it won’t be on-brand. Your fonts, your colors, your style? Gone. Instead you’re stuck with whatever the model felt like that day. Which means you’re back in Photoshop, rebuilding it from scratch if you actually want it to perform.

That’s why pros still hire designers or spend hours tweaking thumbnails by hand — because thumbnails aren’t just about grabbing attention, they’re about grabbing the right attention and converting it into clicks that matter. AI shortcuts skip that entirely.

So yeah, sure — AI can get you a thumbnail. If you’re fine with your channel looking like every other amateur who trusted “A.I. magic” to do design. But if you want something that actually converts, you’re editing. Always.

They brag about cranking out viral YouTube thumbnails with A.I. like it’s magic. What they don’t tell you: they had to run dozens of prompts, burn through a pile of credits, scrap almost everything, and then finish the one half - decent result in Photoshop anyway.

Here’s the reality: thumbnails are strategic design assets. They’re not just “cool pictures.” A good thumbnail needs clean composition, clear hierarchy, legible text at tiny sizes, consistent branding, and the kind of polish that makes someone actually click. AI doesn’t give you that. It spits out chaos — warped faces, colors that clash, and text that looks like it was cut out of a ransom note.

That “$30/month” subscription you thought was a deal? Yeah, it becomes $100–$200 the second you realize one “finished” clip takes dozens of failed attempts. By the end, you’ve burned time, money, and patience — and for what? A 12-second clip nobody remembers.

So let’s cut the crap. A.I. video is neat. But pretending it’s the future of polished, on-brand, business-driven content? That’s a lie. It’s eye candy for people who care more about views than results.

But what about image-to-video? Well, unless those images are laser-focused on your brand, it’s still random junk. Getting on-brand means actually training custom style models and using programs with a ton of fine-tuning options. Guess what subscription A.I. tools don’t give you? Fine-tuning. You’re stuck with whatever random look the tool feels like giving you as you button-mash the “reuse prompt” feature. Yeah, “feature” my ass. More like the “eat up all my credits” button.

And EVEN THEN, if you’ve ever tried A.I. video, you know the truth: the output barely listens to your prompt. You say “zoom slowly,” it snaps around like a drunken cameraman. You say “add subtle motion,” it convulses your subject like they’re possessed. You say “make them smile,” and your avatar instantly transforms into an insane person with a grin that would make the Joker have a panic attack. Every attempt eats more credits. Every render feels like you’re paying to watch failure in HD.

Text-to-video doesn’t care about your brand, your message, or your strategy. It spits out flashy visuals that grab attention for about three seconds and then… nothing. No conversions. No sales. Just a bunch of wasted impressions from people who thought, “Huh, neat.”

Congratulations, you just destroyed your cost per impression. Because attention ≠ conversions. These gimmicky clips actually hurt you in ads, because your CPM skyrockets when you’re feeding impressions to people who just want to see the shiny toy, not your offer. “Cool-looking garbage” is still garbage.

Oh yeah, sure. Any idea. Just type a sentence and boom, feature film. Right now, A.I. video is cool — but it’s also short, random, and entirely pointless. The clips last a few seconds and are inconsistent from shot to shot, so all you get is a bunch of "one offs".

Oh yeah, sure. Any idea. Just type a sentence and boom, feature film. Right now, A.I. video is cool — but it’s also short, random, and entirely pointless.  The clips last a few seconds and are inconsistent from shot to shot, so all you get is a bunch of "one offs".




















Text-to-video doesn’t care about your brand, your message, or your strategy. It spits out flashy visuals that grab attention for about three seconds and then… nothing. No conversions. No sales. Just a bunch of wasted impressions from people who thought, “Huh, neat.”

Congratulations, you just destroyed your cost per impression. Because attention ≠ conversions. These gimmicky clips actually hurt you in ads, because your CPM skyrockets when you’re feeding impressions to people who just want to see the shiny toy, not your offer. “Cool-looking garbage” is still garbage.

















But what about image-to-video? Well, unless those images are laser-focused on your brand, it’s still random junk. Getting on-brand means actually training custom style models and using programs with a ton of fine-tuning options. Guess what subscription A.I. tools don’t give you? Fine-tuning. You’re stuck with whatever random look the tool feels like giving you as you button-mash the “reuse prompt” feature. Yeah, “feature” my ass. More like the “eat up all my credits” button.

And EVEN THEN, if you’ve ever tried A.I. video, you know the truth: the output barely listens to your prompt. You say “zoom slowly,” it snaps around like a drunken cameraman. You say “add subtle motion,” it convulses your subject like they’re possessed. You say “make them smile,” and your avatar instantly transforms into an insane person with a grin that would make the Joker have a panic attack. Every attempt eats more credits. Every render feels like you’re paying to watch failure in HD.

















That “$30/month” subscription you thought was a deal? Yeah, it becomes $100–$200 the second you realize one “finished” clip takes dozens of failed attempts. By the end, you’ve burned time, money, and patience — and for what? A 12-second clip nobody remembers.

So let’s cut the crap. A.I. video is neat. But pretending it’s the future of polished, on-brand, business-driven content? That’s a lie. It’s eye candy for people who care more about views than results.

The whole “unlimited” pitch is designed to sound like freedom. But real freedom isn’t tied to a billing cycle. Real freedom is having a system that sits on your own computer, with no one tapping you on the shoulder saying, “Time’s up — pay again.” Unlimited isn’t unlimited when it disappears the second your card stops swiping.

Yeah, unlimited — as long as you keep paying. Stop the subscription, and guess what? Unlimited turns into zero real quick.

That’s not freedom. That’s rent. And here’s what they don’t say out loud: those “unlimited” claims are throttled. You get priority when the servers aren’t slammed. You get faster generations until the system decides you’ve hit a quiet quota. After that? Slower speeds, lower quality, or a polite little message telling you to upgrade if you want the “real unlimited.”

Yeah, unlimited — as long as you keep paying. Stop the subscription, and guess what? Unlimited turns into zero real quick.

That’s not freedom. That’s rent. And here’s what they don’t say out loud: those “unlimited” claims are throttled. You get priority when the servers aren’t slammed. You get faster generations until the system decides you’ve hit a quiet quota. After that? Slower speeds, lower quality, or a polite little message telling you to upgrade if you want the “real unlimited.”

















The whole “unlimited” pitch is designed to sound like freedom. But real freedom isn’t tied to a billing cycle. Real freedom is having a system that sits on your own computer, with no one tapping you on the shoulder saying, “Time’s up — pay again.” Unlimited isn’t unlimited when it disappears the second your card stops swiping.

And let’s be real — when these guys say “secret features,” what they’re actually pushing is a stack of “magic prompts” or so-called hacks. You’ve seen it: “Use this one weird trick and ChatGPT will turn into a marketing genius overnight!” No, it won’t. What you’re really doing is copy-pasting someone else’s overhyped template into a chatbot.

It’s smoke and mirrors. There’s no vault of hidden capabilities waiting to be unlocked by their “special sequence.” ChatGPT doesn’t suddenly become Einstein because you typed “act as” before your request. The model has limits. It has context windows. It has rules. And no amount of prompt theater changes that.

So no, there’s nothing “hidden.” There’s only “shit you could’ve Googled." - period.

This one kills me. There are no hidden features. None. It’s just settings you haven’t clicked yet. But “secret features” sounds way sexier than “here’s how to toggle advanced mode.” It’s marketing theater, nothing more.

This one kills me. There are no hidden features. None. It’s just settings you haven’t clicked yet. But “secret features” sounds way sexier than “here’s how to toggle advanced mode.” It’s marketing theater, nothing more.

















And let’s be real — when these guys say “secret features,” what they’re actually pushing is a stack of “magic prompts” or so-called hacks. You’ve seen it: “Use this one weird trick and ChatGPT will turn into a marketing genius overnight!” No, it won’t. What you’re really doing is copy-pasting someone else’s overhyped template into a chatbot.

It’s smoke and mirrors. There’s no vault of hidden capabilities waiting to be unlocked by their “special sequence.” ChatGPT doesn’t suddenly become Einstein because you typed “act as” before your request. The model has limits. It has context windows. It has rules. And no amount of prompt theater changes that.

So no, there’s nothing “hidden.” There’s only “shit you could’ve Googled." - period.