this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
71 points (94.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

5714 readers
3882 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ReadyUser31@lemmy.world
aeronmelon@lemmy.world
71
GenAI Slop (mastodon.social)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by dch82@lemmy.zip to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 15 points 1 month ago

AI-generated artwork (and your can recognise it a mile away) is the image equivalent of fake marble columns on a suburban house.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago

People who use AI in applications like this are often blind to just how weird AI generated images are.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I personally would rather see a well-crafted MSpaint diagram of what the fuck the author is describing than a Generative AI's take

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A generated image could be so good you'd never be able to tell. Like this one:

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Or it could be the fact that “good looking” literally has no objective measure.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 month ago

I think something innocuous or inoffensive enough to most people qualify as "good looking". I mean, that's how marketing works.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

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.