Anyone else notice the obvious misspelling of “climate” in the AI-generated hero image?

lynndotpy 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's pretty amazing how much we've lowered our collective standards for article quality since the advent of AI generation. (Not just here, but everywhere). It's not like it's a rote spelling mistake deep in the article, the spelling mistake is the very first thing you see.

Why would a serious author go with this image? Just a few years ago, misspelling "climate" and having nonsensical political cartoon to headline your article would have just been disqualifying.

	▲	uvaursi 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Whereas before the air of sophistication conned you into thinking the authors knew what they were talking about, it took AI slop for you to see how bad things really are. Queue the “always have been” meme.

▲

mikestew 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s the only thing I saw before I closed the browser tab. If you’re going to use AI to generate an the very first things reader sees, proofread the damned thing so it doesn’t come off as amateurish.

▲

dmart 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When I see an AI-generated hero image, I close the tab. It’s an excellent heuristic for quality.

▲

vunderba 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Wow, that is a terrible image (yellow tinge indicative of gpt-image-1, spelling errors). I don't mind generative images being used in articles, provided that they:

A. Have some relevance to the actual content.

B. Don't exhibit glaringly obvious AI flaws (polydactyly, faces like melted wax candles, etc.).

It's amazing how little time people take to vet images that are intended to be the first thing viewers will see.

Reminds me of the image attached to Karpathy's (one of the founding members of OpenAI) Twitter post on founding an education AI lab:

https://x.com/karpathy/status/1813263734707790301