Again, good to know.

Although, my AI-generation was a response to an interesting comment. You do not think readers are interested to see how the Chernobyl snow-globes look like?! (Looking at AI generated images or store links.)

But we wouldn't know what it looks like, we would only know what your AI thinks it looks like. So no, we're not interested in filling up our heads with vaguely related AI slop. If you had actually posted the store link that would be an entirely different question, which you've somehow tried to conflate with generated images.

> Although, my AI-generation was a response to an interesting comment.

Yes, that's why the comment it was in response to was not downvoted. But being interesting and HN-appropriate isn't something responses automatically inherent from their parent comment.

> You do not think readers are interested to see how the Chernobyl snow-globes look like?!

Actual Chernobyl snow globes... maybe a link to that would be appropriate.

AI hallucinations of what they might look like? Maybe if the context was a discussion of the capacities of different AI models and it was offered as a demonstration of the one that generated it, but not in the context it was presented, no.