5mo ago

GenAI Slop

mastodon.social Glyph (@glyph@mastodon.social)

Please 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 a...

Text:

Please 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.

You're viewing a single thread.

16 comments

I think the real complaint here is about bad looking art. Not a lot of people have an eye for picking out good-looking images. Or this person is just a huge snob.
- I personally would rather see a well-crafted MSpaint diagram of what the fuck the author is describing than a Generative AI's take
  
  A generated image could be so good you'd never be able to tell. Like this one:
  
  You know The jeopardy clues have a set height that this violates right? I know from context that this image isn't what it appears to be, even without knowing which tool was used to make it.
  And the alignment isn't centered properly, which isn't something someone with enough skill to replicate the font that closely would do.
  
  Yeah, but the point isn't to look like a legit Jeopardy clue, it just has to not look generated. You can respect the height limit if you want, or break it.
  Your reply also wasn't in the form of a question. No points.
  
  It's extremely obvious because the lettering shadows have shadows themselves and they don't match. It's simultaneously trying to be the flat image and the CRT soft afterglow of the shadows at the same time, when in real life you'd only have one or the other. It's also giving a headache.
  
  That isn't extremely obvious though, especially with the JPEG compression. If you didn't know to look, you wouldn't have noticed it. No one scrutinizes Jeopardy text.
  
  It's super obvious, I caught it immediately just scrolling the thread, I don't even do graphic design or anything. You can just tell if you have ever seen a single episode of Jeopardy in your life.
  
  That's a lot of things to infer off of just scrolling past a 512×768 JPEG. If the image was in another context and the text had been different, no one would have batted an eye.
  
  Perhaps, but the soft shadows still don't match the text. It's uncanny. An amateur designer would've gotten a better result on Photoshop in less time.
  
  I wanna believe you, but the JPEG artifacts on an image that small make it extremely difficult to even notice the distortions you're referring to, especially at a glance. You've made it obvious you're replying in bad faith, so I'm gonna leave it here. Have a good one.
- Or it could be the fact that “good looking” literally has no objective measure.
  
  I think something innocuous or inoffensive enough to most people qualify as "good looking". I mean, that's how marketing works.

16 comments