GlyphPlease 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.
I understand the appeal, I also wish I were a competent illustrator, I also see some genAI stuff that looks kinda neat, I learned about the dollar-bill rule when I was the layout editor for my high school newspaper, I understand wanting to break up big blocks of text with visual interest for lighter writing. This is why, when I can, I take custom photos or include relevant classical art in my blog. Sometimes I'll even just use a stock image. It feels like genAI is like that but more customized.
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.
Sami Juvonen@glyph 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. 🤷♂️)