What is the issue with AI-generated images? Just being overdone in general? Or ethical concerns?
Second, does anyone really care? Has anyone spent more than half a second looking at a generic picture on an unrelated article? Does the generic hoodie hacker look good on security articles? Or the earth with pretty links on a networking article? Or the overdone handshake on a deal article? They feel equally as cheap and more importantly equally unimportant. It's a placeholder that noone should really care about.
Third, what's the value of having human beings spend time on an image that's just there to fill space? I kinda get the argument for company identity and things that matter, but filler for an article? Nah, that's exactly where we shouldn't be spending human resources, IMO.
I hate AI-generated photo more simply because they're not good enough (yet) to not look fake immediately; it even has somewhat uncanny valley effect. If one day they're as good as stock photos, then my opinion with them would be on par with that, too.
I care, hence the comment. Can't speak for others.
> where we shouldn't be spending human resources
I agree; which is why in general I don't see the need to include irrelevant pictures at all for a software release post.
You see an AI generated image next to a bullet point list and start to suspect all you are reading is AI generated nonsense.
It doesn't exactly help communicating professionalism if that is the intended goal.
Rather, it gives the idea that the author did a minimal effort post.
None really, using a stock photo in a blog post is also a stupid idea. Just don't add any image if it isn't needed to get an important point across.
Of course it can be overdone, but it definitely does add utility for me at least sometimes.