The problem comes when the imagery is placed as a false value signal. If it is designed to send a signal of "this content took a lot of effort to produce because an image that would be hard for a human to make is attached to it" - but the image was generated without that effort, then it's basically a lie and insult to the reader.
Decoration and ornament have served always to signal extra effort that went into something, signaling that it is considered important and valued by the maker/owner. But people also have incentive to do cheaper mimicry. And then the viewers have incentive to distinguish real from fake to see where true, scarce effort went. These dynamics are crucial for understanding the feelings and emotions around AI. Value is almost never in the thing itself or some inherent quality but in the social signals and relationships. (somewhat less true in very utilitarian engineering machinery or for sustenance level basic necessities).
In cheap housing constructing, every step hides the previous steps mistakes. Framing - drywall - trim - texturing - painting - decorating.
While AI images in a blog signify low effort high volume posting where the text likely was just copied from AI without any care.
Just go full American Psycho eggshell business card.
This stuff you say it signifies, it says more about you than them.
So now we have this low-effort image generation tool. At least it doesn’t indicate that the author wasted a substantial amount of time looking at pictures. Still a silly waste of time, but at least it is a small one.
People will always make snap judgments, you can't inspect every website in detail. So if you use AI, make sure there are some other signals of quality.
Images (incl. icons) can also be there to structure text and provide visual clues on what is where.
Take a look at the Google Image Search results for 'Engine Diagram' https://www.google.com/search?q=Engine+Diagram&tbm=isch
In the first row I get two correct-looking diagrams, then a load of AI-generated ones. Three cylinder heads for four cylinders? Two crankshafts? Oil pan labelled Crankshaft? Oil pan labelled Connect in rod? A four-cylinder engine with seven valve springs? Parts labelled up to 39 but a 9-item key? Spark plug wires that loop back on themselves? A crank shaft where the pistons aren't offset in phase? Four-cylinder engines whose exhaust manifolds have three or five openings? Then in the second row, I get "Parts of a V6 engine" showing a four-cylinder engine - with an 'Exhaust malvol', an 'extaust manivol', an 'exsoust manivol' an 'oilolaivt manivol'
Savvy technical audiences have noticed this - and so when a diagram has a whiff of AI about it, they become extremely skeptical and distracted.
Personally I only use AI-generated diagrams very sparingly, and very carefully.
What baffles me is why anyone would think it a good idea to post and host these images? What’s that upside?
As a bonus you can then prompt AI to validate whether the diagram matches article and vice versa, I've caught some small bugs like that when we migrated our docs
Communicating low effort used to be insulting to the consumer, yet now I'm expected to praise it? I understand that we're not talking about monetary exchange, but we're still talking about my finite time in this world, time that I could've been invest reading or looking at something else.
So we're going back to my favorite adage these days: If you cannot spend time writing it, I refuse to spend time reading it.
In fact, the moment I realize someone's content is AI generated, I just feed the links (youtube -> transcript, blog posts -> link) to chatGPT and have it generate a summary. That's because if you're in favor of using your time efficiently then so am I.
Little icons would be less noticeable at least.
I try to find something better when I can, but the need to put something on every post is exhausting.
But, for abstract posts, random bits of code, notes, etc - it looks bad to have them be all the same generic icon or my headshot for them it seems off-putting. I'm not a graphic artist, so I instead use MidJourney generated icons for social / post icons that match the topic of the post.
If it's only decoration, leave it out. No matter whether AI, stock or custom made.
So do with it as you wish, if you enjoy playing with AI and having it assist you with any part of it it's your corner of the net do with it as you absolutely wish and everyone else can kick rocks.
Well, the issue is the majority of AI images seems to fall into this category, which then trains my brain to treat all AI images in this way, rather than sifting for the few golden use cases where it's legitimately adding value.
At work, for example, I'm more likely to go brains off if someone presenting content shows an AI generated image in their slides.
I’m quite happy without all the slop.
If you're creating complete slop, no one is reading your article in the first place. Full stop. The image doesn't matter.
As with anything, it's about what you created, and creating at all - not the tool you used to create.
The snobs and haters will continue to b!tch and moan. They always have. Always will. Your two cent elitist opinions are still only worth two cents.
But you didn't create anything in this case. Not the images at least. Which then casts doubt on the rest of the writing in said blog post.
I've heard it all before.
Gate keepers wanna keep the gate as long as they can.
Isn’t that what a prompt literally is?
[Edit: Further, these don't really line up with what the comment you're responding to is saying. If all you did was write a prompt for an image, it gives the impression that you may have done the same for the text. At that point, if I care about what the AI has to say, I can just write a prompt to an AI myself.]
The gatekeeping on this is crazy. I really wonder how artists discussed photography and other advances.
If you compare this scenario to photography and art, it's pretty clear you've not actually participated in that community
I was comparing this to when photography first came onto the scene not today, but I'm tired of the gatekeeping (which you retreated back into) which says this isn't art when as with every creative process, it is derivative and creative.
People already splice together videos of generated clips. Is that not creative? It's just gatekeeping. People in a few years (or already) or in a generation won't be this pedantic about it.
I never said there wasn't, but I also wasn't talking about human roles where people in larger creative teams have some kind of artistic say in the final output of a much larger process involving other talented humans. That is a very different example and I think you know that.
A director does a hell of a lot more than select what goes in a frame and then sit back and watch it come together.
It's a start of a barber's pole of fashion. Like when it became desirable to wear torn jeans even if you can afford proper ones. But you can only safely do it if you won't be confused with an actual hobo. It signals not playing by midwit pearl clutcher rules. So same with AI use. Don't play to the pearl clutchers, but don't be a hobo either. Shower but have somewhat torn jeans.
It will be wrong sometimes, but mostly it's not. OP has a point.
This is how I'd like for human-on-behalf-of-human outreach to work too, i.e. if my human secretary sends a message under my identity and via my email client, I'd expect it to be under their name not mine.
This points out some long standing issues with lack of accountability and deception by humans through our time. Think: humans have been doing these things:
- human have other humans impersonate them and send messages on their behalf (i.e. via secretary, receptionist, email, a VA, via social media via a social media manager)
- friends or family answering your letters if your a celebrity
Those behaviors, deceptive and lies, are insults to you at the expense of the gain of the liar. We haven't held them to accountability or a standard of respect before AI, and so we are facing the same challenges we did before AI - we just have more humans doing the same thing with AI as the <insert old human role here>. Why have we been unable to hold them accountable to the deception before - lack if transparency, lack of power to hold accountability to the behavior?
It’s a turnoff immediately if someone shares what their agent wrote.
It also has happened a few times they contain a fair number of misrepresentations and mistakes.
You can put it inline or at the end of the article: references, citations, further reading, "AI".
(It might also be the only way to stop training models on their own output)
Speaking for myself, I have absolutely no interest in reading anything written by an LLM that I didn't prompt myself, under really any circumstances I can think of.
Usually there are many buttons and links one wouldn't click on.
If authors can't resist having chunks of copy paste slop in the middle of their article they can do it in a way I don't have to see it.
They also get a fair opportunity to impress me with a prompt that looks interesting enough.
And they get to distance themselves from the idea that copying [say] a Wikipedia article into a blog posting is the same as writing something.
I think it is like CGI in movies, in the beginning it was often obvious and jarring. Over time as it gets better the obviousness of AI images will be much harder to spot and they will be common without being noteworthy.
What a ridiculous conclusion jump.
It's the complete opposite of that. I prefer human things, human interaction, with human beings involved, which in some way reflect the human experience.
Maybe they are hoping robots will replace human interaction, connection and intimacy like in some of those future distopian movies
I want to say /s but I'm sure lots of people are looking forward to this because they are already lonely
look at me. i'm happy! >:(
hm, ok
Their first reaction was to say they didn't see any problem with the image, then they changed it for an abstract image that I couldn't tell if it was AI or not, which is a huge improvement.
I thought I was alone in feeling this way, but turns out people from the sales team told me privately that they were happy I had spoken up.
Selecting a stock image doesn’t have this effect, even if it’s not related to the post. Even the most unremarkable stock image has the fingerprints of its artist, and the choice itself can reveal things about the author. They don’t have that hyper-polished unintentioniality and subtle uncanny hollow “wrongness” that generated images do.
The whole thing was packed with information and completely worthless. I’m 100% convinced that before too long we’re all going to be allergic to this low effort crap, and craving actual people with an actual point of view.
it's fatiguing to read that stuff as well
She’s had to figure out where the line is though. She tried using ElevenLabs to dictate her scripts, thinking it’d make things more convenient for her fans, and that lost her subscribers because they seemingly disliked the more obvious use of AI.
Yes, this is what's insulting about it, the assumption that it won't be noticed.
People noticed, they just didn’t want cause a conflict over it.
Actually using AI to make a shitpost image relevant to the text? Amusing, fun, worthwhile.
For me it's a reverse filter, the people I see doing the shaming, those the loudest most seemingly unhinged anti-AI folks - they get blocked / ignored and looked at as if they were the equiv of PETA activists.
That's a wild stance. If you don't like what someone else made - AI assisted or not - you can just move on and not purposefully set out to publicly ruin them...
Ethical: favour the notion that humans should be who we look to for writing, and that some of them are hopefully meaningfully compensated for it
Political: favour the decentralisation of effort away from US cloud AI firms
Practical: there's too much to read in the world; a very useful quality signal is to favour things obvious people put obvious effort into
Personal: it is soul-destroying that we live in a world that suddenly devalues people and their efforts so completely.
I think perhaps you are showing your own bias here. But abusing people for their chosen principles is not a business-winning strategy.
Imagine if Kobalt, Craftsman and DeWalt were scummy as fuck, and a bunch of people went around on the internet shit talking anyone who used power tools, and calling anything they built with them trash. That's the reality we're in now.
If you read the summary/abstract and nope out because there's nothing interesting or insightful, whatever, but if you were interested in subject of the article and its assertions and you nope out because of an AI writing tic, that's just toolish.
I'm sure this has happened. If the author can speak with authority about everything that has written, then ya, I have to concede that is fine. It's obviously the most true when you are going to be engaging with the author. If you ask them a question and they respond, "I'm no sure, the LLM wrote it," that is a huge problem (and pretty pathetic, I might add).
> but if you were interested in subject of the article and its assertions and you nope out because of an AI writing tic, that's just toolish.
Meh, it I can find another article on the same subject written by a person then it's not too toolish. I've never liked this argument. It's the same thing with music. Even if I like a piece of music, and then I find out it's AI, I'm not going to listen to it. I can understand why people think this is stupid, but there is SO much music--even before it exponentially exploded with AI--that I can find something else I really like created by a person. Especially since when something really tickles my fancy, I like to read everything I can about the artist (which is an indirect form of engagement).
That's why I don't take this too seriously, at the end of the day you're complaining about time that you're probably wasting online and getting mad at the author for potentially saving time, too. Does generating images mean you don't understand what you're writing about?
I remember HN comments used to be of higher quality than this.
Have fun.
I'm a major AI user. Coding? Sure. But language learning, some art projects, TTRPG design. I'm so far 'lost' that I have a number of AI songs on my YouTube play list. For the anti-AI people, I'm like a walking abomination.
Yet despite all this, I still am a firm believer in "if you couldn't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it" as a default stance. I feel human to human communication should remain human to human. If AI is involved, the extent should be limited to where the human to human communication couldn't be achieved otherwise and fully disclosed.
Someone might even say I'm a bit of a hypocrite. Why do I like listening to an AI song but not reading an AI blog. Honestly, I'm not sure. I'm actually a bit puzzled by it myself. Regardless of the why, I think I should be an example of someone who holds this position for reasons entirely different than those you suggest.
I don't even disagree with you in general, a lot of AI discourse does seem to have bad faith arguments put forward and I do tire of some of them. But this specific one is one of the more few that seem good faith enough we should steelman it.
People already tried to cancel others because they didn't agree with them. Eventually the most of people came to a conclusion that it is no good. I think at least that the most did just that. So I'm proposing another solution, just ignore what you don't like. No one is forcing you to read a blog that uses AI generated images or uses a wrong color for its background.
It surprises me, that you don't know. But if you wanted to know you'd ask LLM, not me, right? So I'd rather spare myself from explaining it.
> I think it's totally fine (and even good) to talk about the flaws in stuff.
To talk about the flaws and public shame are different thing, don't you think?
But please keep it coming. I need to spend less time idly browsing and the growing preponderance of AI is helping push me in the direction I want to go. My time spent on “social media” has dropped significantly over recent months.
Pen-type input systems are pretty cheap these days (no need to go reMarkable, I just use it because I have one.) It's not a super frequent need but having something of that type in general I'd consider valuable enough to spend the money.
A chess game between to bots is boring, no matter how strong the bots are. Humans generally compare themselves to other humans and that's part of how they value.
The latter, of course, which is why that's what I own. Aside from that, this is an absurd and grossly dishonest analogy -- that's not at all the choice here.
Some of the most fascinating games are between Stockfish and Leela. (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_84B_VwayU -- this is narrated by National Master "Jerry", one of the most respected chess narrators on YouTube.) People who don't know this know nothing about chess. (And only immature clueless fish respond by challenging someone to a game. Lack of knowledge of chess was already established by their ridiculous claim.)
Some of the most stupid things I have ever read are from those suffering from radical anti-AI hysteria, and it is becoming a primary means by which I judge people's intelligence. ("radical" is a key word here -- there are numerous legitimate reasons to be critical of numerous aspects of the AI boom.)
I won't respond further.
Would you rather watch a chess tournament between two of the best human players in world, or between two of the best bots in the world?
I challenge you to a game. Lets Go!
The "featured image" in Wordpress is what gets shown on the index page, in shared social posts, and other contexts. And certainly, the algorithms favor such posts over pure text posts, even if the text content in the spartan post is far better.
There are other factors at play, too. Many bloggers are lazy, some are severely time constrained, a few are fearful of legal repercussions associated with copying images off the Internet, and a majority are creatively or technically incapable of making their own images to include on a personal blog post.
The point of repetition is to reinforce understanding by approaching the same place from different directions, so the reader can pin down your idea at the intersection of these various thrusts. Multiple arrows from roughly the same place going in roughly the same direction don’t constrain the expressed idea, instead they just make it fuzzier.
And if you generated a pic I suppose you also generated your post, so I'm way less likely to pay attention to it.
Interesting because I'm seeing tons of YouTube channels using AI generated stick figure animations with AI voice overlays to trick people into thinking it's not AI generated.
There was zero depth to it.
that seems lazier than whatever they're gatekeeping about
they even tried to get in front of that criticism
https://disclosure.launchbowl.com/ https://launchbowl.com/ai_nutriscore
I think AI images can enhance a blog article as long as the reader is fully aware and trusting that it's just the auxiliary material to the blog has been generated, not the main body of value.
I don't see what the problem is with AI images, if some thought has been put into the image itself and if it's relevant in some way. I'd far rather see something playful and on-topic than the generic stock images littering blogs previously or some random example of the writer's photography with little connection to the article.
But really, whatever I like or don't like is besides the point. The blog using AI images isn't my blog. And if I was one of the blog authors who've sent this author into full prig-mode, I'd say to him, "No worries, Nelson. Have a happy life." I'd wager the blog author's own life wouldn't be any happier for bowing to the sensibilities of the Nelsons of this world.
I'd think in the former case it doesn't matter and it's mostly the text I care about to be interesting and personal. I don't read non technical blogs so I don't know what if ai images are a turnoff.
Spend some time on it. Find your own style.
Eventually it'll be perfectly normal to use AI-generated content (and use AI to summarize it), and nobody will bat an eye.
There is negative value in wasting vertical space to put an irrelevant prompt output in an article. It makes me question the sanity of whoever is doing this stuff. Doubly so if they actually think they dumped a bunch of AI-generated text on the internet just for people to AI-summarize it. Like... what are they DOING?
In many contexts, images are meant to illustrate a point. The human becomes the gatekeeper of generated content. The question becomes: does this picture illustrate the point I want to make. If so, you are adding your human approved stamp to the genrated output.
The actual content is written by me. If there are any code samples that were AI-generated, I'll call them out as such.
Yes, this is the exact kind of AI image usage that discourages me (and presumably this post's author) from reading the rest of it.
like why?
to me it just means "I'm an author that likes/makes AI slop and this article is probably half if not complete AI slop or not worth reading"
I don't see how that would add any value or boost page visits
Pretty soon, you will not be able to tell.
What you really mean is "obvious AI-generated images".
I'm not gonna spend my mental bandwidth on figuring out if the thing is worth reading/whatever and that somehow the author just didn't realize that it's a net negative
The original prompts might have had something interesting to say, but it is so layered with filler and platitudes that it is just a waste.
After being burned enough times, we hunt around for signals that an article is about to waste our time.
Not all articles with AI images are LLM written, but almost all LLM written articles have AI images.
The author is telling you a hueristic is that people are using, and for this person here, I am totally doing it.
A picture of a napkin doodle at this point is superior.
Before, the simple existence of the content of some basic level of quality was a strong signal of effort, which corresponds strongly to value. If it's there, it's worth reading.
Now, the existence of content of a basic level of quality signals nothing. It might have some value, but it's much more likely it's useless AI slop.
This principle -- if it's there it's probably worth taking a look at -- undergirded so much of system of creation, discovery, and sharing that made the internet special -- blogs, open-source, posts, comments.
It allowed the gatekeepers, middlemen, guided channels, and tolls to be removed from the creation, enjoyment, sharing, and consumption of content.
I'm worried we're going to have to go back, just to get away from the avalanche of crap people are using AI to produce at crazy rate.
As much as I like to be on the anti AI bandwagon, for which there are plenty of good reasons. Some people use the tool (like any tool) well, to compliment their work.
Eg. this author uses great images to accompany their articles (except for one which is obviously AI), its hard to know if they are real or not but they support the text. https://tuhat.net/@jesusrrodriguez/
Regarding businesses, I think the use of bland stock images made most corporate sites awful years ago. AI is just accelerating and making it easier for the rest of us to create the lazy heartless "content" that has been so common from the corporate world.
Personally, I'm okay with AI generated images as long as it's not obvious or slop: For me, a carefully-prompted image is on par with a carefully chosen photo, carefully chosen diagram, ect.
I also hold blog entries to a lower standard than professional content: I'm much more likely (after skimming) to read an imperfect non-professional blog entry than (after skimming) imperfect professional content. (And professional content is where I expect images that are higher quality than AI prompting.)
As time goes on they'll be harder to spot. We're going to need a new way of determining quality as such obvious signals have a limited shelf-life.
Not that AI generated images are always bad. They are perfectly acceptable if used for (not an exclusive list): small separators between sections in large blog posts, or other decorative features; used to illustrate things for which no real image exists (as long as it's labelled as an impression/reconstruction/etc.). They're only really a negative signal if they're used dishonestly, to claim something existed when it didn't, etc.
Not everything made with some kind of AI assistance is slop, but all slop is made by AI.
At least with AI there might be some thought or idea behind it. Even it is lazy slop.
We're drowning in this stuff, and no one has enough hours in their day to find out if obviously AI-generated slop can make a positive impact on their life. Why don't you read it and let us know? We'll continue to not engage with it.
Stock photos or AI generated images are always wrong. Real photos, no matter how bland, convey information from reality and are always right.
The biggest thing, for me, is provenance. I sometimes get amazed at how people just grab any image they want, and slap it into their blog. There's a whole class of scammer, that goes around spamming fake "we're gonna sue you" letters to sites (I have gotten them, for images that I know are completely clear of obligation). If the image really was ripped off, then they won't be scammers, sending the emails.
I'd rather someone use an AI-generated image; especially if it's just "window dressing," than they put themselves into legal jeopardy, by pirating images.
And if he's to be believed in 1859, photography isn't art.
But today, it's widely accepted that it is. And in all likelihood, you think it is too.
Why is that? And if you have an answer, you'd have to argue why AI generated images wouldn't follow the same trajectory.
What about stock photography, IMO as much as I personally hate "overcooked" AI-generated imagery, it doesn't annoy me that much more than stock photography does on blogs.
I do however use it as a gauge of "if the images are generated by AI, how much of the text content is?" though, so...
If you push AI-generated content to make stuff look fancy, it's a bad idea. If you generate stuff to communicate more clearly, I don't see a problem.
If it were not for this, as a geeky photographer I'd get into it with you about whether Ansel Adams was really an artist, whether he's any particular benchmark or high water mark for photography, and whether individual creations are any less artistic than what he did.
> most people make garbage,
That's fine, that's what sets truly great art apart. Not that it terribly matters, more care and ingenuity goes into even some shit instagram thirst trap picture than every clanker slop ever output combined.
These are lifeless things. Their only value is by referencing human creation which they debase with their very existence.
Photography couldn’t qualify as an art in its own right, the explanation went, because it lacked “something beyond mere mechanism at the bottom of it.
I don’t see how blanket labeling all images made with AI as slop is any different from people rejecting photographs because they were made with chemicals and lenses.
In 100 years the same article will be written about AI art, and will probably feature the phrase “clanker slop”.
And somehow, it's a leap of logic that just because the AI image is generated that the text is also. It's as silly as asserting because someone used a camera, they hired a ghostwriter.
Cheap AI image generation is a miracle and this article is dumb af
Before that, when there was a photo in the article it was a frame from a footage from the event or the photo, or the schematic of the device the article was about or something. Something relevant to that particular piece of information.
But then everything became click-bait factory illustrated by images that fit the mood.
AI images don't make it worse. Don't make it better. But they might if they get better at relevant infographics. For now they aren't good enough because they rely on a human for understanding of what are they to depic and humans often don't care enough.
Lazy use of stock imagery is a problem.
The author say they’d prefer Microsoft paint images but actually I don’t think this is true of most audiences. People have the ability to make terrible paint images for decades and they’ve never caught anyone’s attention in a positive way, it’s not going to start now.
OP’s blog of white text on black background will be forgotten quickly. If I visit it again, I will have no recollection of ever having visited. I’m not saying they need to use AI, but to oppose AI with the opposite —- minimal design or even intentionally crappy design — will not have the intended effect of communicating “this is quality human-authored content”, it will just be forgettable.
Often, you find ugliness and rule breaking as a backlash to an overly polished status quo. AM radio rock gave way to punk, hair metal gave way to grunge, and EDM gave way to hyperpop. The most iconic album cover of 2024 was the word "brat" badly rendered on a plain, garish background.[2]
[1] https://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/05/sneaky-hate-s...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpjgl2baLs
(Then again I was like 15 when this appealed to me…)
If the blog is otherwise not about being amusing or edgy, then the MS Paint is going to send a different vibe. In your examples the paint sets the vibe, which I think is what they were going for.
Citation needed for this one. It could be because people don't do it very much? I think a very good piece of writing coupled with a crappy but intentional MS Paint piece could be very attention catching and memorable.
> OP’s blog of white text on black background will be forgotten quickly.
I actually get annoyed with the tech crowd always complaining at seemingly the slightest bit of flair or fun added to any blog. To each their own, of course. I've seen some really slick minimal blogs but I do like it when layouts gets creative--gawdy, even!--, so long as I can read the text. And you can always use reader mode.
Rather than wasting time sorting all these out when the images are there mostly to break up a wall of text, some blogs simply use a few AI images. This way if those letters come, they can simply put them in the bin.
I don't object to this use of AI images at all.
As someone who adds AI generated images on blog entries (a single context-appropriate genAI image that is used for OpenGraph sharing), I just do not give a shit if some people have opinions like this. Jog on?
The vast majority of bloggers in 2026 do so for their own edification, to their own preferences and choices. Whining about what they do is decided a beggars being choosers thing.
> Other: Claude Code
Then the author said:
> I know there are plenty of things you can roast my blog for but at least you know for a fact you’re getting the thoughts of a real human being and not some LLM.
So it is OK for you to use AI generation tools like Claude Code and likely using it in your blog or using it to generate code, but it isn't OK for you to see someone else using AI to generate images?
With the above already stated, that means the author cannot guarantee that not a single use of AI was used in their blog at all given that we know they use Claude.
Why preach fake principles with virtue signalling and then break your own standards in your own blog post?
So spot on!
And, with that Paint drawing, it'll probably illustrate what you mean and at the same time we establish some kind of trust; I'll know this is not just mere AI slop.
If pictures are so important, why would "nobody... take the time to hand draw a piece of art" or find a one of the many free stock photos? When I was actively blogging, I would doodle quick images to include all the time for this precise reason.
The problem is, there are also AI generated MS Paint drawings that you can't tell is AI. We are only noticing the AI images that are in an 'AI' style. The AI tools allow you to make images you can't tell is AI.
Did you read tfa?
>I’d rather see a shitty Microsoft Paint drawing as opposed to some AI image.
young people will get used to GenAI as a style and it'll become the new normal.
you can see it in the flowery AI writing that's proliferating into email and docs.
https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/920401/g...
Image is content , ai can generate art level images and an obvious slop . To read or or not is absolutely up to reader , not someone’s entitled opinion .
But I have another hatred:
Monospace fonts in blogs.