When Your Site's Articles Are Being 'Cheapened' by Slop as Feature Images
This is today:
Dr. Andy Farnell is an excellent writer (be sure to read his new article, dated yesterday). 1.5 years ago Dr. Farnell explained why using slop images in one's site is bad optics - it gives a bad impression in general. Quoting the fine article from Dr. Farnell: "So starting with this Spring Equinox we'll not be creating any more pure AI images for the site. It's been a difficult decision. We'll also slowly be removing and replacing some of the older images with hand illustrated or hand-crafted digital montage type works."
His reasons: "Perhaps the real problem is with association. Much as we love generative AI as a visual technology for one specific task we categorically do not use it in writing, or for video and sound. All of us are involved in original research, creating prose, poetry, writing and recording the music. We manually produce each episode using open source tools like Ardour and KDEnLive. That's the pleasure of the art and craft of our show. But what does it say to followers when the visual site aesthetic trumpets "AI is cool!"? Does it create a suspicion that more, maybe all of the other content is machine made?"
Dr. Farnell should become an advisor to The Register MS, given that its current trajectory is worrying. █
4 days ago: Shutterstock Not Enough? The Register MS Uses Slop Images in Articles (Seemingly More and More Over Time)