I'm fascinated by the thought process, or absence thereof, involved in such an image ending up in something that's obviously meant for consumption by others.

As the author, do you just don't see what ridiculous image the slop machine spewed out - a kind of visual dyslexia where you do not register problematic hallucinations?

I can go on for a while hypothesizing, and none of the reasons I can come up with warrant using obviously bad AI slop images.

Is it disdain for your users - they won't see it/they won't care/they don't deserve something put together with care? Is it a lack of self-respect? Do people just genuinely not care and think that an article must have visuals to support it, no matter how crappy?

The mind truly boggles.