Text:
Please do not add genAI images to punch up your writing. You might think that it adds a nice little bit of visual pizazz to your content-marketing piece, but what you’re actually doing is *making it look like content marketing* rather than a useful resource. To the extent that content marketing is an effective tactic, it is because you build trust with the customer by providing them valuable information. A genAI turd plopped on top of your writing is a signal that it will be worthless slop.
AI-generated artwork (and your can recognise it a mile away) is the image equivalent of fake marble columns on a suburban house.
People who use AI in applications like this are often blind to just how weird AI generated images are.
I think the real complaint here is about bad looking art. Not a lot of people have an eye for picking out good-looking images. Or this person is just a huge snob.
I personally would rather see a well-crafted MSpaint diagram of what the fuck the author is describing than a Generative AI’s take
A generated image could be so good you’d never be able to tell. Like this one:
You know The jeopardy clues have a set height that this violates right? I know from context that this image isn’t what it appears to be, even without knowing which tool was used to make it.
And the alignment isn’t centered properly, which isn’t something someone with enough skill to replicate the font that closely would do.
Or it could be the fact that “good looking” literally has no objective measure.
Please do not add genAI images to punch up your writing. You might think that it adds a nice little bit of visual pizazz to your content-marketing piece, but what you’re actually doing is making it look like content marketing rather than a useful resource. To the extent that content marketing is an effective tactic, it is because you build trust with the customer by providing them valuable information. A genAI turd plopped on top of your writing is a signal that it will be worthless slop.