| |
| ▲ | bonoboTP 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The article author should have specified more closely which type of image. Stock image sites had already made generic photos and drawings cheap to include. And indeed they look cheap. The more airbrushed and high quality the cheaper it looks. If a dentist website has cheap beautiful stock nurse photos, it's less valued than real photos taken by a photographer at their location. | | |
| ▲ | PaulHoule 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Once in a while you get a good one, one that stands out among all the others, and that's a worse outcome because the same image will be used by everybody including your competitors. | |
| ▲ | mosura 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | At that point why have images at all? Just go full American Psycho eggshell business card. | | | |
| ▲ | ToucanLoucan an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's hard to articulate this stuff, and especially hard to explain it to the AI infatuated among us because they don't really want to understand why people dislike the tooling they're obsessed with. AI is good at many things, digesting vast quantities of information, and code being most of them. Everything else to me looks/sounds like shit. AI music sounds dull and overproduced in a way that a lot of middling pop music does. AI images look overtuned and strange in the same way a magazine editor would, if they had no self control with their tools. It just... looks bad. As an aesthetic. If you are not aesthetically minded, you may not care, or you may not be able to tell, and that's fine. But I am and I can and if I open your blog post and see AI crap, I'm leaving. I'm not asking anyone else to, and I don't give a shit if my best friend in the world wants to beat his meat to your AI generated sunset, good for him, I hope he has a great time. But I'm not interested. Why these super-pro-AI people take this as such a personal slight is strange to me. You didn't care enough to actually make something, what are you offended if I tell you I don't really want to look at it? | | |
| ▲ | bonoboTP 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The tools are getting better and often that overproduced thing is the toupee effect, where you don't notice the better ones. The generic look can be avoided with more customized prompting. You can make much more natural songs with longer prompts, a bit of quickly self-sung melodies you add as references, even if you can't sing. Similarly for images, sketching something out in paint can make a huge difference or just iterating 2 or 3 times and not accepting the first result. And the tools are going to get better too. |
|
| |
| ▲ | orangedog 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think it signifies any of those things. This is all new stuff. Some people have decided to offload image-creation to machines because what they care about is the text. This stuff you say it signifies, it says more about you than them. | | |
| ▲ | michaelt 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Some use of hero images by bloggers is a deliberate style choice, to emulate the norms of professional journalism. A lot of traditional news outlets have a style rule that every article must have an image. Look at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news https://www.nytimes.com/ https://www.economist.com etc - every article has an image. Even a report on something highly abstract - "BP reports record profits" - will be illustrated with a photograph of some BP-branded fuel pumps. Stories on things like cybersecurity and inflation get generic images like snippets of blurry computer code, banknotes etc. Some bloggers feel their blog is improved by adopting the style of professional journalism, and (among other things) put an image on every article. Even if for a programming blog good lead images are hard to come by. Interestingly, professional journalism organisations often have pretty strict codes of practice about images, and photoshop use. They have rules on everything from illustrating one rocket launch with a photo of another to posing the subjects to colour-correcting images to creating multi-image collages. So I don't imagine we'll see many AI-generated images in traditional news outlets any time soon. | | |
| ▲ | ghaff a few seconds ago | parent | next [-] | | People who know more about the topic than I do will argue for a default image for an online article for SEO and other reasons. Online pubs I've done stuff for would usually take a good/relevant photo if you have one. But, otherwise, would generally use some fairly generic stock graphic from some service they subscribed to. Same goes for book covers. You probably need something unless you want to look really generic and cheap. But I'm mostly not going to pay a designer hundreds+ of dollars for a cover of an independently published book. I have had a former colleague who is actually good with this sort of thing do it in the past. I've also done a crappy job myself, done it in conjunction with a publisher (for whom I had the supply the cover image), and, yes, used generative AI/Photoshop. | |
| ▲ | graemep 8 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Interestingly, professional journalism organisations often have pretty strict codes of practice about images, and photoshop use. I seem to recall many instances of the use of incorrect photos, and the earliest I heard of was in the The Guardian in the 1980s before the general decline in media quality and standards. |
| |
| ▲ | bee_rider an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, everyone knows the best content is on a professor’s site from the 90’s, with no images. Maybe some figures, but if so, they should look like they were printed, physically cut out, and then scanned. Bonus points if the background of the image absolutely does not match the color of the webpage. 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. | |
| ▲ | qlm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you don't care about the images then don't have images. | | |
| ▲ | duplessitous an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | No one ever said they didn't want images, this is a non-sequiturs | | |
| ▲ | mejutoco an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Some people have decided to offload image-creation to machines because what they care about is the text. | | |
| ▲ | duplessitous 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Thank you for providing the text that reaffirms my statement. If you have the time to copy and past someone else's text, you should take the time to actually read it |
|
| |
| ▲ | intrasight an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Or just have a podcast so that you don't have the option to have images. | | |
| ▲ | pluralmonad 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It bothers my brain when a longtime followed podcast changes their cover image. You conditioned my brain for years to a certain image and pattern and now you change it? How dare you! |
|
| |
| ▲ | bonoboTP 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's about experience visiting many sites and spotting a correlation. There is a very bottom of slop, the equivalent of the chumbox from earlier. But on the higher end it may be more like you say. If there are other indicators of quality, I wouldn't penalize it for AI use. It's like having lots of piercings and torn clothes and tattoos. You may be a genius scholar who is kinda into this as a hobby or you may be an actual lowlife who can't hold down a job and gets into trouble with the law all the time. 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. |
|
|
