People would be less mad if you straight up used a stock image with a watermark so I don’t understand why people go out of their way to use AI when they know people will comment on it and it will detract from the point of the article.
Also, using AI in the thumbnail makes people automatically assume you’re using AI in the text as well. And if you’re not doing that, why would you lessen the perceived value of your writing by making it seem like you are?
It just seems pointless and actively harms your actual goals because people will get hung up on the fact that you used AI and ignore your actual valid points. Especially when you’re writing about open source projects when most people interested in open source are vehemently anti-AI, it really just shows you don’t know your target audience.
While I mostly agree with you (and 100% on it distracting from the article), I think you’re not thinking about image rights.
If you’re a serious blogger with a good sized blog, a lawsuit or DMCA or otherwise is potentially a killer outcome of using an image you don’t 100% sure have the rights to. With AI, you can be 100% sure you can use the image however you want, without any repercussions. I’d imagine that’s huge in the considerations for a blogger.
Any idea how well verified the images are on those sites? What’s the chance that one with copyright gets uploaded and I get hit with a giant fine for using it?
Dunno. I feel like if you’ve used an image from a reputable source under the proviso that you’re licensed for it, and it turns out you’re not… you may be able to blame Unsplash etc. and just swap the image out.
I dont think this is a reasomable counterpoint because the target audience in question would also vastly prefer shit as simple as an mspaint illustration or a dithered irl image.
Also, it is quite feasible to find royalty free images, and I have no idea where you’re getting the impression it is not. There are a host of images that provide licensing metadata. Google image search and co. can find these. It’s simply a matter of verifying the license authenticity.
People would be less mad if you straight up used a stock image with a watermark so I don’t understand why people go out of their way to use AI when they know people will comment on it and it will detract from the point of the article.
Also, using AI in the thumbnail makes people automatically assume you’re using AI in the text as well. And if you’re not doing that, why would you lessen the perceived value of your writing by making it seem like you are?
It just seems pointless and actively harms your actual goals because people will get hung up on the fact that you used AI and ignore your actual valid points. Especially when you’re writing about open source projects when most people interested in open source are vehemently anti-AI, it really just shows you don’t know your target audience.
Using an image with a watermark will get you sent legal threats or fines.
While I mostly agree with you (and 100% on it distracting from the article), I think you’re not thinking about image rights.
If you’re a serious blogger with a good sized blog, a lawsuit or DMCA or otherwise is potentially a killer outcome of using an image you don’t 100% sure have the rights to. With AI, you can be 100% sure you can use the image however you want, without any repercussions. I’d imagine that’s huge in the considerations for a blogger.
Unsplash, Freepik, Pexels, and countless other sites exist where you can get free images with clear licensing.
Any idea how well verified the images are on those sites? What’s the chance that one with copyright gets uploaded and I get hit with a giant fine for using it?
Dunno. I feel like if you’ve used an image from a reputable source under the proviso that you’re licensed for it, and it turns out you’re not… you may be able to blame Unsplash etc. and just swap the image out.
For now… maybe. The courts haven’t really settled that issue yet.
I dont think this is a reasomable counterpoint because the target audience in question would also vastly prefer shit as simple as an mspaint illustration or a dithered irl image.
Also, it is quite feasible to find royalty free images, and I have no idea where you’re getting the impression it is not. There are a host of images that provide licensing metadata. Google image search and co. can find these. It’s simply a matter of verifying the license authenticity.
It’s just fundementally stupid.