[push0ret]

I haven't come around any AI generated imagery in documents / slides that adds any value. It's more the opposite, they stand out like a sore thumb and often even reduce usability since text cannot be copied. Oh and don't get me started on leadership adding random AI generated images to their emails just to show that they use AI.

[linux2647]

> Oh and don't get me started on leadership adding random AI generated images to their emails just to show that they use AI

Feels like generated AI art like this is modern clipart

[GaggiX]

It may be survivorship bias, you only notice the AI ones that are bad.

[pona-a]

The problems are not visual but epistemic. If the author didn't specify enough to produce a useful chart, then it's going to be the diagram equivalent of stock images thrown on a finished presentation by a lazy intern. You can't rejection-sample away this kind of systemic fault.

The simple truth we're about to realize is there is no free lunch: a tool cannot inject more intent into a piece than its author put in. It might smooth out some blemishes or highlight some alternative choices, but it can't transform the input "make me a video game" into something greater than a statistical mix-mash of the concept. And traditional tools of automation give you a much better, more precise interface for intent than natural language, which allows these vagaries.

[spunker540]

Yeah there are almost certainly times when it is gen ai and you just didn’t notice.