Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI-Generated Images Discourage Me from Reading Your Blog

nelson.cloud

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 493 posts

Re: AI-Generated Images Discourage Me from Reading Your Blog

#131

Post by cosmic_cheese »

I’m inclined to agree, but not as much because the image was generated with AI but rather because it’s rare for such images to exhibit taste. They feel like the visual equivalent of gilded twinkies, which is offputting.

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.

Re: AI-Generated Images Discourage Me from Reading Your Blog

#132

Post by sodapopcan »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #126
sodapopcan wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL, TF are you talking about? It's neither a political nor ethical, it's practical. It's about not wasting your previous time on earth reading garbage the author doesn't understand themselves.

[flagged]

Oh ffs, I knew it was a mistake to engage with you but couldn't help myself.

Have fun.

Re: AI-Generated Images Discourage Me from Reading Your Blog

#133

Post by llm_nerd »

Ok? That's nice.

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.

Re: AI-Generated Images Discourage Me from Reading Your Blog

#134

Post by CuriouslyC »

cpburns2009 wrote: post #117
CuriouslyC wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's more of just another red flag. If you're speaking a lot without saying anything useful, I'll drop out. This isn't exclusive to AI content but it exacerbates it. Not wanting to read AI slop is now essentially racism? Lol, whatever dude.

[flagged]

Re: AI-Generated Images Discourage Me from Reading Your Blog

#135

Post by jollyllama »

wincy wrote: post #17

This hasn’t been my wife’s experience at all. She manually writes all her content, but uses AI images as sizzlers for the scenes (fan fic for popular shows). Short of getting the actors together for a million bucks, she’d be hard pressed to make these scenes a reality. It’s also supposed to be aspirational, like “what if the tv cast got back together for another season hey?” I think the average person just doesn’t re…

> I think the average person just doesn’t really notice.

Yes, this is what's insulting about it, the assumption that it won't be noticed.

Re: AI-Generated Images Discourage Me from Reading Your Blog

#136

Post by byronturncoat »

derektank wrote: post #72
sunrunner wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's about what you created 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.

There is an artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece. The film director doesn’t design the sets or give the performances or do the makeup, but they place an authorial stamp on the production by selecting what will and will not end up in the frame.

There is artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece. A film is a collection of the work of artists and performers. Combining AI imagery and AI text together does not make art, because none of the constituent parts are art. A few prompts do not make art.

Re: AI-Generated Images Discourage Me from Reading Your Blog

#137

Post by RandomLensman »

bonoboTP wrote: post #97
zmmmmm wrote: post #8

To me there are different motivations to include imagery and some of them are just fine with AI generation. If the imagery actually goes to the substance of helping to illustrate or explain the actual content then it seems very superficial to reject it based on how it was generated. In fact it is kind of stupid to insist someone slavishly draw something by hand that could have been done an easier way. The problem com…

It's like styrofoam stucco on the ceiling. 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 feel…

That is one use.

Images (incl. icons) can also be there to structure text and provide visual clues on what is where.

Re: AI-Generated Images Discourage Me from Reading Your Blog

#138

Post by seba_dos1 »

jerkstate wrote: post #120
warpspin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. If it's actually an illustrative part of the text, include it, even if it's AI generated. Not everyone who can write can do graphics. If it's only decoration, leave it out. No matter whether AI, stock or custom made.

not everyone who can think and solve interesting problems can write prose well, but there's still a lot of complaining about AI-generated text.

One of the reasons is that, most of the time, LLMs can't do graphics or write prose well enough either; otherwise it wouldn't reek of LLMs so much to people who put some effort to read it. Also, even poor writing or drawing can be elevated with some intentionality and personality, and using LLMs pretty much guarantees blandness.

Re: AI-Generated Images Discourage Me from Reading Your Blog

#140

Post by bonoboTP »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #34
zmmmmm wrote: post #8

To me there are different motivations to include imagery and some of them are just fine with AI generation. If the imagery actually goes to the substance of helping to illustrate or explain the actual content then it seems very superficial to reject it based on how it was generated. In fact it is kind of stupid to insist someone slavishly draw something by hand that could have been done an easier way. The problem com…

For every AI snob that's not reading an article because they see an AI image, there's 10 non-snobs who appreciate a decent usage. 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…

Indeed, including some AI generated things is becoming a costly signal that you're not bound by the neoluddites and the online anti-AI mob / redditor hivemind. I'm starting to like this signal, but it has to be distinguished from the simply being-lazy signal that indicates the content may not be all that interesting of valued by the author. If you have an otherwise high quality site where you aren't afraid to use AI for some elements, that makes me like it more.

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.

Post reply on HN