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.
NEO//LIX 🔊@glyph Decently creative (yes, prompts don't write themselves) AI-generated images = a thousand times better than meaningless stock photos. Custom human made artwork is even better, but I fully understand that not everyone has the budget to commission these. Having nothing at all looks terrible when posting links.
@neo Impossible to prove a negative, but I have never seen this. Do you have an example that would make your case?
(A lot of the time, just avoiding the hero image entirely is the right call, but sometimes a stock photo can help to convey a mood, so if it's gotta be stock or AI, I'd say go with stock as a rule.)
Alvaro 
@glyph @neo I have one. James O'Malley is a british dude with a substack that I enjoy reading. He regularly (not always) uses genAI images to illustrate his posts. I have found his writing to be nuanced, entertaining and informative.
Of course, this is just one counter example. I have (like you) unfortunately seen plenty of AI-illustrated AI-written garbage, but hopefully you find James' writing somewhat interesting
@almenal99 @neo I was asking for an example of a good illustration, not a good writer who uses genAI garbage; the *problem* I'm highlighting is that better writers are unfortunately starting to use this stuff, and thereby beclown themselves. (were these supposed to be good? to my eye these are absolute *peak* Boomer Art garbage)