|
|
|
|
|
|
by queenkjuul
34 days ago
|
|
|
No if they used a bad stock photo it wouldn't be worth noticing and if it were an offensive meme it would have been chosen with intent. A bad AI image is so bad to be worth noticing and serves no other purpose than to fill up space hoping nobody notices how bad it is (which, yes, is what stock image are for, but those are made by IMAGE MAKING PROFESSIONALS so even the bad ones are inoffensive. Doctors and mechanics are both professionals so you'll get Dialysis from a Jiffy Lube?) |
|
|
Surely that depends on how bad the stock photo is? I’ve seen plenty of people comment on bad stock photos in the past. And plenty more moan about the use of memes in articles.
> and if it were an offensive meme it would have been chosen with intent.
…which is better why? It’s still offensive. Except now you saying the author being a dick is better than an author failing to use a decent image generation model?
Personally I’d rather scroll past a crappy image than an offensive one.
> A bad AI image is so bad to be worth noticing and serves no other purpose than to fill up space hoping nobody notices how bad it is
Exactly. Bad images. BAD!!
You’re comparing good stock photos with bad AI images and arguing that AI is the problem. And thus we are right back to my original point where I said it’s the editorial process that failed by allowing a bad image, regardless of the source.
> Doctors and mechanics are both professionals so you'll get Dialysis from a Jiffy Lube?)
Doctors don’t build dialysis machines so your analogy is wrong.
Your whole argument here ignores the fact that gen ai has been used in reporting for a while now; and used well.
This image in this specific article is crappy. But it’s also not representative of all AI images in all articles. Its crappiness is an outlier rather than an example that proves your argument about the ethics of AI generated images.