Skip Navigation
Fuck AI @lemmy.world go $fsck yourself @lemmy.world

Thoughts on AI generated illustrations for articles

Recently, I saw a post on Lemmy of an article that piqued my interest, at least enough to try to validate the information in it. When I followed the link, I was greeted with a clearly AI generated image (it showed trump with an extra finger).

I immediately lost trust in the article and made a comment regarding that. (Link)

But the reaction to this was surprising to me. I got a response stating that the author has a background of being an established writer and reporter, as well as received a lot of downvotes. However, no one responded to my points on the use of AI.

My thoughts are that if you are making money on something, then you need to avoid AI when possible and reasonable.

What's going on here? Am I wrong and this is somehow an acceptable use of AI?

[Edit] side note of something that that just occurred to me: don't go to that thread to manipulate the votes or start ""brigading"" against it for the AI. I just wanted to discuss it here. Thanks.

25

You're viewing a single thread.

25 comments

  • Of all the possible uses of AI, this seems like the least offensive to me.

    • Sure, I would somewhat agree to "among the least offensive" but it's not entirely free of it. Particularly if you are an established writer/researcher, why would you stoop to that level and associate yourself with the use of AI in your work at all? You should easily have the means to pay for an illustration either from stock or an artist, so you're willing to add slop in your work? For what? Convenience?

      • I don't disagree, I just think of everything regarding AI out there, there are better uses of time in terms of complaints/criticism.

    • I understand your big picture perspective, but I'm going to guess you never tried to make a living as an illustrator?

      • You do understand that "the least offensive" thing is still offensive, right?

        • Dude, condescend much?

          1. Don't automatically assume whataboutism on my part when

          2. I'm sharing my personal perspective as a former creative freelancer, and

          3. the literally first two words of my reply was "I understand".

          • Don't complain about other people being condescending when you say shit like, "but I’m going to guess you never tried to make a living as an illustrator" as if you have to have actually done that to see that this is still a problem.

            Yes, you said you understand my big picture perspective. You did not say you understood that I was still saying it was a bad thing and I have no idea why you're trying to gaslight me.

            • What I do see is you're beating a dead horse to get one over here or get the final word. I'm not trying to "gaslight" you?

              Let it go, pal. This "seeing other people's perspectives" thing clearly isn't for you.

              • Yes, but agreeing with your perspective, I can't see your perspective. Logic.

                (Your perspective wasn't the problem, you doing it by being condescending was the problem.)

                • Welp, I still don't see what's condescending about my comment — I guess I should have put a big ol' winky emoji at the end to signal my intended tone. As should be clear I was triggered by your escalating response to that 🤷

                  TBH, I'm still fairly sure you're just playing an idiot game of oneupmanship here, but for what it's worth I didn't mean to talk down to you.

                  • No, I'm just an idiot. And I wish people would realize that.

                    Also, again, I am agreeing with you, so how is it one-upsmanship?

                    (So often on Lemmy I find people who just won't accept that I agree with them when I say I do and I just don't get it.)

25 comments