Comment by w4yai
1 month ago
Why are you sick of AI images, but you're not about stock images ?
They've equally filled the web and articles for the last years.
At least, AI images feel more on point.
1 month ago
Why are you sick of AI images, but you're not about stock images ?
They've equally filled the web and articles for the last years.
At least, AI images feel more on point.
It’s an indicator of extremely low effort. I don’t think fundamentally it’s people not liking the picture, or liking it less than a stock picture (even if the all look the same) it’s just a tell that someone is being super lazy. Same as people don’t like seeing AI posts on forums like HN. It’s less a judgement about the content of the post and more about the way the poster is interacting. Everyone can use AI themselves if they wanted to see throwaway AI output so it feels condescending when it’s presented to us.
Maybe because OP likes images that were actually taken and stock images are fine that way. Different people can have different preferences.
My problem with stock photos is that unless it is clearly a stock image, it can mislead. For example, when looking up information on the solar panels that Jimmy Carter had installed on the White House, the article had a stock photo of a modern photo-voltaic panel. So I was initially confused, as what was described was a solar collector that concentrates the sun's heat to provide hot water for the kitchen. Which makes a lot more sense of why it wasn't re-installed during some roof renovations under Regan (the initial purpose of it was more to inspire the nation, that wouldn't be served much by re-installing it after it had been removed for roof work as the original moment had passed).
I don't like AI images or stock images. If a picture is not needed (or helpful; sometimes it is not needed but can be helpful) to describe it which is specific to that article, add it, but stock images and AI images are not helpful, and can sometimes be deceptive in some contexts (although so can pictures specific for the article, if the pictures are badly made).
Often, the text will be good enough, or better (since then you do not need to download the picture, it does not take up space on the screen (or on a paper if printed out),e tc.)
AI images tend to have uncanny-valley details about them that make your brain go "brotha, eugh!" in a very subtle way, perhaps just below the threshold of conscious awareness. Stock photography is not nearly so unsettling, so your brain just skims over it.
They're both pointless filler, but because stock photos are from the real world, they don't suffer from "detail collapse" - sure, there's not much meaning to be found, but the detail stays coherent as you keep looking at them for longer so your brain quickly realizes they can be safely skimmed.
Your visual system looks for detail, it's consistent with your world model but empty of meaning, it doesn't trigger your attention network, you can ignore it and keep going.
AI images do suffer from detail collapse - the longer you look at them, the less sense it makes. Look at the image in the linked post - the sculpture makes no sense, the code inscribed on it looks like real code - oh wait no it's not, the characters quickly blur into garbled scratches, and oh ? there's a smaller block of even more "meaningless" code nested into the first?
Your visual system looks for detail, it's inconsistent with your world model, so it triggers your attention network in search of the meaning behind it (things that are not consistent with our internal world model are of utmost importance to our attention), but there's none to be found. You've just wasted mental cycles on slop, whether you consciously realize it or not.
In either case shitty MSPaint drawings would be much better as they would express personality, and there'd only be the level of detail that their author judges useful, but that would require actual effort.
> Why are you sick of AI images, but you're not about stock images ?
Both are bad. Just use text.