I haven't used AI to generate images for my posts as much lately. If I have the choice at a similar productivity, I prefer to use my own photos/screenshots, or free images on specialized websites. But it is clear that if you don't have an image handy or you don't use screenshots, it's very often that the AI will generate a better image even with an average or bad prompt (if it has the option to create more elaborate prompts based on your prompt as an intermediate step), in a shorter time than it takes for you to find a suitable free image online.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'm not against generating images to illustrate a post in the same way as using something with a free licence from a library, but the image itself has little value and so there must be something else worth voting on.
It may have one value... To attract eye balls. Plus, we do need to illustrate our posts with something, even when we focus on text.
I agree that for a post focused on images or video, AI-generated images or videos are not the way to do it if you want upvotes. Of course, at some point, we might have issues making a difference. But by that point, maybe there will be some other AI tools capable of reliably telling AI-generating content from human creativity.
I agree that images do help to get attention and I see plenty of people use them when the post is a wall of text. I think that's okay. In the short form feeds you see a lot of generated images with no context.
I don't really follow the short form feeds unless I'm looking for something specific or something attracts my attention for a short while. They... wear me down.