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

451–460 of 493 posts

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

#451

Post by ojinai »

bonoboTP wrote: post #321
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mus…

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…

[flagged]

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

#452

Post by rvz »

pseudalopex wrote: post #273
rvz wrote: post #104

From [0] https://nelson.cloud/about/#skills > Other: Claude Code Then the author said: > I know there are plenty of things you can roast my blog for but at least you know for a fact you’re getting the thoughts of a real human being and not some LLM. So it is OK for you to use AI generation tools like Claude Code and likely using it in your blog or using it to generate code, but it isn't OK for you to see someone else…

Someone who needed work listed a skill in their CV which many employers demand. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

They did that all by themselves.

> Someone who needed work listed a skill in their CV which many employers demand.

Then don't preach that you don't like AI yet you use it at work.

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

#453

Post by fatata123 »

echelon wrote: post #352
wateralien wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're setting yourself up for a lonely life. What a ridiculous conclusion jump. It's the complete opposite of that. I prefer human things, human interaction, with human beings involved, which in some way reflect the human experience.

No. This anti-AI attitude is getting old and tired. I'm getting sick of people insulting the work that I do, calling it lazy (it's not), and saying I should do things in the manner they prefer. I'm also sick of the childish death threats. If you don't want to interact with me because of AI, good riddance.

[dead]

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

#454

Post by CM30 »

graemep wrote: post #320
michaelt wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

I recall some rather awkward/amusing examples of this in media reports on certain video games. It's better now, but at one point, about half the featured images for articles about the game Super Mario World used some random pic from DeviantArt to represent the game (despite said art looking nothing like the original title), while a similar number of articles about Super Mario 64 represented it with a screenshot of the ROM hack Super Mario Star Road.

No-one knows exactly how said images ended up getting this sort of usage. Presumably some random journalist was on Google Images one day, come across pics that looked vaguely like what they remembered the games to look like, and just kinda went with it.

I also remember quite a few cases where fan-made box art mockups got accidentally used as the pictures of the real thing, and when the BBC used a logo from Halo to represent a real-life organisation.

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

#455

Post by aakresearch »

heaney-555 wrote: post #192

Have you seen Midjourney 8.2? Pretty soon, you will not be able to tell. What you really mean is "obvious AI-generated images".

Last time I checked, their landing page looked like, I imagine, an escort agency catalog would. And why would I go to a cesspit if I already disturbed enough by that "art" screaming at me from every corner of Internet?

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

#456

Post by nemo »

iqbal1980 wrote: post #439
nemo wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using AI to generate content isn't expressing yourself. It's expressing non-human AI content that's actually not a part of your self - AI content is the opposite of self-expression, it's other-expression. That's why people dislike seeing it peddled as self-expression.

You are missing the point, let's take "2001: A Space Odyssey" the novel book cover was not made by the writer Arthur C Clark. But by artist Robert McCall. Well not everyone can afford to hire an artist. You can be creative in your field, and still hire a human or use an AI to do art instead. What's the difference?

In traditional publishing publishers view the cover as a marketing tool - Arthur C Clark had negligible influence over what appeared on the covers of his books in his career when 2001 was released. That's not self-expression by any definition. You could hire a human to do art for you if you like, that's also not self-expression, nor is using an AI to do art for you. There's no meaningful self-expression in the act of having other people make things for you, they're doing the expression, you're enjoying (or not enjoying) the result.

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

#458

Post by bonoboTP »

Planktonne wrote: post #328
bonoboTP wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 Your comment is an example of what the parent comment is discussing; the reflexive "you can't really tell and anyway you can do it better to stop people being able to tell and also soon it will be better so no one will be able to tell" is a gallop like the nar…

It's fine to care about the human element and human connection. Analogy: It's fine to want to hold a large vinyl in your hand, look at the artwork, caress the sleeve with your fingertips, whiff the smell of the record and enjoy the experience. It's just that just as with "digital CD music is quantized and sounds worse than analog" got exposed as nonsense, the same way "I can tell it's AI and that's why I don't like it" will also not stand the test of time. You can still want human music for the human reason, but you won't be able to tell them apart.

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

#459

Post by Gigachad »

ghaff wrote: post #324
michaelt wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 a…

Someone paying hundreds for a good cover design is a signifier that a lot of effort went in to the book and the cover reflects that. An AI cover signifies that this is a quick rush out the door cash grab book that likely isn’t worth reading.

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

#460

Post by kdheiwns »

oliwarner wrote: post #387
kdheiwns wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've developed an internal heuristic that tells me people who think an AI image to fill some blank space in any way improves anything aren't saying anything of value. There's a strong likelihood they're just trying to promote some product or scam. I came to this conclusion after seeing 100% of sites with AI images plastered on them being scams and BS with no actual value. Meanwhile, a blog that's basic HTML and text…

How does your heuristic handle your qualitative and quantitative words here? If you land on a blog post with a single, pertinent illustration (from a LLM), do you assume the post, site and author are all robot trash and run away? Investigate the other posts before reading further? The point of my caps, above was that I'm writing for me. If I think my post is improved by me prompting a LLM for an illustration, that's…

I don't assume it's trash. I know with absolute certainty. It's the same as seeing someone posting with one of those old NFT monkey avatars. You know they have nothing of value to say, and they're most often going to try selling you something of no value.
Post reply on HN