new | show | ask | jobs Github

aeve890 2 hours ago

>No AI was used to generate the text for this article

Damn. Please never stop writing

▲

andai 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The slop art gave me the wrong impression. I did enjoy the read even thinking it was AI though.

▲

neogodless an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I'm sorry we're getting so off topic here but...

I suppose it helps to focus on the core of someone's strength, and the core of the content they are sharing.

You could be a great engineer and a great blogger, but have no skill in making graphics. If you made the artistic choice to add AI-generated art to an excellent engineering blog post, I would forgive it -- assuming it wasn't detracting in some important way.

Overall, the human skill of editing - particularly excluding that which is not additive - does remain key though.

I will say in this case, I don't know the pop song well enough to know if the AI-generated image is super relevant, or just random.

EDIT: I'm guessing it's "Kant"[0] in the image, listening to modern music. Ah... at first I thought it was like, George Washington.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

▲

aeve890 an hour ago | parent [-]

You're absolutely right! jk. I hate this situation of "everything is slop until proven otherwise" and the author doesn't have to be good at writing and drawing just to share their thoughts. But generally you don't expect a Michelin star level meal after having a turd sandwich entrée. It's just a natural pavlovian response at this point to see slop and expect slop. Totally unfair, I agree, but really hard to get rid of it.

	▲	andrewflnr an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It's not even unfair. It's just a heuristic that occasionally gives incorrect results. We and the author would have both been better off skipping the illustration. The real problem is that "serious content creators" believe (as far as I can tell anyway) that they must have a cover image to make the article appealing or set the mood or whatever. They might even be right as far as the actually reader is concerned, but either way this is the real disease, and it's decades older than LLMs.

▲

stronglikedan an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not an art piece, it's a writing piece. The illustration is just there for support, not the central focus or even the topic of the article. The author is obviously a decent writer, but I don't see how they should be expected to pay an artist for a simple illustration when this article has nothing to do with said illustration. Life isn't black and white, and you'd do yourself a favor by noticing the shades of gray.

	▲	leni536 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I don't think the illustration adds anything, it could simply be left out. I did enjoy the writing.
	▲	odo1242 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They don’t have to pay an artist for the illustration, just use a stock photo (lots of which exist). Or leave it blank (nobody needed an illustration). Having an AI image for filler seems to be in poor taste.

▲

aeve890 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah me too. While reading I keep thinking "ok this might be ai generated but it's not slop. Good job funny man". I owe the author an apology.

▲

assumed_throwaw 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]