Post #4265497

2024-09-16 16:13 UTC

But it isn't. Unless you are a *real* master with these tools there is an unavoidable sheen that they leave on the generated image. It's the smell, if there is such a thing. This is not just me; if you go anywhere that younger people are congregating online, "boomer art" is the *most* polite thing that they call this stuff. It damages your credibility. If you were lazy enough to fake the image, are you lazy enough to fake the facts? It is *much* worse than just having no image at all.

Replies (3)

@glyph@mastodon.social 2024-09-16 16:16

This is hardly an original insight. Lots of other people are posting this exact advice. But I want to emphasize it because I just passed on linking to a page for like the 10th time this week because it included a big genAI hero image which looked like absolute shit. Scanning the article briefly it actually looked pretty good, it did not read like LLM slop, but it is a reputational risk to link to something that will give readers that immediate negative impression, and it's not worth it.

Open ##4265498
@sjuvonen@infosec.exchange 2024-09-16 16:35

@glyph@mastodon.social Thanks, I’m going to use “do you know the youngs call this boomer art” from now on. Should be a good argument because the people using slop in this way think they are at the vanguard of tech innovation. (Of course the likely outcome is they will just hate on me for being negative. 🤷‍♂️)

Open ##4265500
@hungryjoe@functional.cafe 2024-09-16 16:52

@glyph@mastodon.social I'm sympathetic that you might feel you need to have some kind of image to use for og:image; otherwise preview cards look pretty bad I think we could bring back the Victorian "title page", with a bunch of information in different fonts:

Open ##4265501