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

231–240 of 493 posts

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

#231

Post by dwedge »

causal wrote: post #168
softwaredoug wrote: post #2

There’s also a class of “detailed agent written technical blog” that’s you can just scan and get the shape that it’s long paragraphs, tables of statistics, and dry LLM writing. You notice the blog has one or more such posts a day. It’s a turnoff immediately if someone shares what their agent wrote. It also has happened a few times they contain a fair number of misrepresentations and mistakes.

It's a turn off both because you don't know if it's accurate at all, and because LLMs have a way of turning 1 sentence ideas into pages of diluted slop.

Even if it used to be accurate. Percona were a great resource and now it's all giving LLM vibes. Maybe it's still accurate, it probably is, but it also feels like they don't care

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

#232

Post by iamwil »

ModernMech wrote: post #106
Laurel1234 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Photography is a form of art and requires human work and creativity, it isn't some clanker slop.

Okay but that’s exactly what the painters said about photography when it was invented. They said it was more chemistry than art because of the development process. Photography couldn’t qualify as an art in its own right, the explanation went, because it lacked “something beyond mere mechanism at the bottom of it. https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/ I don’t see how blanket labeling all images made wi…

Exactly my point. People simply weren't alive in the beginning of a medium, so they think how it is now is how it was always so. For the first 20 to 30 years of film, people disregarded it as art.

And somehow, it's a leap of logic that just because the AI image is generated that the text is also. It's as silly as asserting because someone used a camera, they hired a ghostwriter.

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

#233

Post by functionmouse »

jmartrican wrote: post #215

Some content creators are too focussed on their work that they might not have noticed the debate going on online about AI-generated images and all they wanted was a cool image for their content. They might not have known that they walked into a hornet's nest.... but they will find out soon enough. Should they have gone down the alternative route, where they spend time and money hiring someone to do it... who will pro…

Totally false equivalence.

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

#234

Post by nialse »

Genre images are frequently used to give a post an aura, as a kind of decoration and serves no other purpose than that. Then there are the images that does not quite fit in, that gives that AI ick. Few, if anyone, like them. They demonstrate lack of effort and demand your attention anyway. An imbalance in the force most can immediately sense. There needs to be some originality, some original thought or expression, a creative threshold needs to be passed. Which tools were used to create an image is not important, it is the who and why that is.

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

#235

Post by dahart »

sunrunner wrote: post #118
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you didn't create anything if you used Photoshop... You didn't create anything if you used synth and autotune... You didn't do any scientific research if you used a calculator. You didn't do anything if you just piped together two programs. I've heard it all before. Gate keepers wanna keep the gate as long as they can.

You probably put a fair amount more effort and intention in than from just writing a text prompt, I'd wager. All of those examples would require you to at least have some kind of idea about your intended output.

> at least have some kind of idea about your intended output.

Isn’t that what a prompt literally is?

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

#236

Post by atomicfiredoll »

sbochins wrote: post #53

I don’t have a problem with ai generated media in blogs at all. Nobody is going to take the time to hand draw a piece of art for a blog that takes them less than an hour to write. Pictures speak a thousand words and serve as a great intro to a blog post. Embrace the future.

> Pictures speak a thousand words and serve as a great intro to a blog post.

If pictures are so important, why would "nobody... take the time to hand draw a piece of art" or find a one of the many free stock photos? When I was actively blogging, I would doodle quick images to include all the time for this precise reason.

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

#237

Post by iamwil »

CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #14
iamwil wrote: post #11

Would photography discourage OP from reading a blog? Should I hand-paint my imagery? If I am the type of person that would use a camera, then maybe I'd be the type of person to hire a ghostwriter.

AI images are not photography.

Charles Baudelaire argued photography could not be considered a fine art because it merely produced mechanical replicas of reality without input from human imagination. He called photography "art's most mortal enemy" and the "refuge of all failed painters" who lacked artistic talent and training.

And if he's to be believed in 1859, photography isn't art.

But today, it's widely accepted that it is. And in all likelihood, you think it is too.

Why is that? And if you have an answer, you'd have to argue why AI generated images wouldn't follow the same trajectory.

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

#239

Post by mosura »

bonoboTP wrote: post #167
Gigachad wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a blog, real images signify you spent a lot of time creating the post, it was very important to you, and you likely made sure the details in the text were accurate. While AI images in a blog signify low effort high volume posting where the text likely was just copied from AI without any care.

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.

At that point why have images at all?

Just go full American Psycho eggshell business card.

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

#240

Post by TeMPOraL »

voakbasda wrote: post #229
michaelt wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most important thing to keep in mind, when considering AI images for helping to illustrate or explain the actual content, is that AI-generated images have a big trust problem. Take a look at the Google Image Search results for 'Engine Diagram' https://www.google.com/search?q=Engine+Diagram&tbm=isch In the first row I get two correct-looking diagrams, then a load of AI-generated ones. Three cylinder heads for four…

To be fair, the problems you describe existed before AI, though I concede it has gotten worse. What baffles me is why anyone would think it a good idea to post and host these images? What’s that upside?

Same reason fishermen put baits on the hooks, or hunters make weird sounds: it helps attract unsuspecting victims closer, increasing the chance of extracting some value out of them.
Post reply on HN