4 ms·

Man, I wish folks would stop using AI generated header images. Throws me off right from the get go.

by pavel_lishin 3y ago

Dban1 3y ago
until it gets virtually indistinguishable to the human eye
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Even if it were indistinguishable from the human eye, I'd still find it annoying. Not every blog post needs a generic, caricature-esque stock photo.
  - owlninja 3y ago
    She's staring at the back of her monitor on the main page.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    That’s all I could see on mobile. The screen is to narrow to see more than the lady typing and the edge of her monitor. So that’s all I thought it was. A generic stock image. So I didn’t pay any real attention to it because it was “just” a stock image. I agree with you. It was totally unnecessary.
- swatcoder 3y ago
  Common usage never will. There will always be a bias towards some default settings in whatever popular tool, because people who aren't very discerning or dedicated will just punch in a few common ideas into the tool and take the first thing that looks good enough to them. But people on the outside will continue to have an instinctive sense for these default style biases and be able to tell pretty well that an image was produced that way. The escape hatch will be what amounts to AI stock photo industry, where practiced "AI Art" designers prepare images that are more subtle and unique and sell them pretty cheaply. The technology surely can be pushed to the point where a well-crafted image is virtually indistinguishable, but most people are going to just drop "anxious woman at keyboard" or "happy dog with a ball" and there's only so much unique information contained in those prompts so defaults will always reign.
  - chfalck 3y ago
    Never? Really?
  - MBCook 3y ago
    On my phone this was good enough to fool me. I couldn’t see the back of the monitor. So as presented on the site it looked like a stock image. I didn’t heavily scrutinize it. But without the additional context seen on a desktop it’s not that remarkable.
  - eru 3y ago
    > There will always be a bias towards some default settings in whatever popular tool, because people who aren't very discerning or dedicated will just punch in a few common ideas into the tool and take the first thing that looks good enough to them. How is that different from the established practice of using stock photos?
    - noirbot 3y ago
      And most people see stock photos on a blog and see that a bit negatively too. If the ceiling here is stock photos, that's not great, but the issue is that the state of the art is "stock photo but with glaring weirdness"
Topgamer7 3y ago
Honestly if you added just a tad bit of noise. You probably wouldn't notice.
- calderknight 3y ago
  That's something you can easily prompt for, too.
Larrikin 3y ago
I wonder how many people said similar comments about Photoshop and other computer generated graphics when they were new.
- MyFedora 3y ago
  No need to go back in time. People say that about CGI in movies today. Studios lie about CGI, and even alter BTS footage. Directors are under NDA. Actors are clueless. Everyone says everything is real to appeal to the CGI bad crowd. Media outlets hype the new practically shot movie. After a few weeks or months after the release, the VFX studios behind the movie show off their work. Turns out it was CGI all along, but nobody cares at that point.
  - noirbot 3y ago
    To be fair, a lot of folks who dislike modern CGI dislike it because it's often used poorly and hamhandedly. Would it maybe look better if they did it practically? Possibly, but a lot of the revulsion to it is based on seeing real movies that looked really bad because they did CGI as a shortcut around shooting a movie in the city they say it's set in, or clearly working around having an actor just shoot in an empty room and add other characters in later with no real interaction between them. If you do something poorly, it reflects poorly on the results. If it becomes endemic to do something cheaply and poorly, people will think that method is indicative of cheapness and laziness. It doesn't negate that it may be possible to do it well, but you can't just chide everyone for seeing the trend and reacting to it.
    - MyFedora 2y ago
      It seems we're approaching this from different angles. My concern is that the general public often doesn't realize how impressive CGI can be when done well. This lack of awareness fuels a negative attitude, allowing studios to underpay VFX artists and enabling the Oscars to consistently disrespect the entire VFX industry. A prime example of this disrespect was when they interrupted VFX artists' acceptance speeches with a cocaine joke, instead of letting them thank their families.
wokwokwok 3y ago
I couldn't help laughing at it (https://grumpyolddev.com/images/IMG_2609.JPG https://grumpyolddev.com/images/IMG_2609.JPG). Is that code... on the back of the monitor? ...and the back of the chair behind her? Or is that a giant ipad she's sitting on? hahaha... If you're gonna use an AI image, come onnn... make an effort at least that it's not completely weird and crazy. It takes literally seconds to generate these images and this was the best you could pick?
- rk06 3y ago
  the image is actually quite good. it is obviously not meant for realistic
- sgt 3y ago
  Monitors with screens on both sides. Such a brilliant idea! Imagine the cost savings for companies putting hundreds of people on rows and opposite each other.
  - doublerabbit 3y ago
    Forced back to the office and sat in the old un-politically correct fashion school order of "boy girl boy girl". Surely an CEO's wet dream.
- krupan 3y ago
  Hey, at least her hands look pretty normal

Man, I wish folks would stop using AI generated header images. Throws me off right from the get go.

Dban1 3y ago

until it gets virtually indistinguishable to the human eye

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Even if it were indistinguishable from the human eye, I'd still find it annoying. Not every blog post needs a generic, caricature-esque stock photo.
- owlninja 3y ago
  She's staring at the back of her monitor on the main page.
- MBCook 3y ago
  That’s all I could see on mobile. The screen is to narrow to see more than the lady typing and the edge of her monitor. So that’s all I thought it was. A generic stock image. So I didn’t pay any real attention to it because it was “just” a stock image. I agree with you. It was totally unnecessary.
swatcoder 3y ago
Common usage never will. There will always be a bias towards some default settings in whatever popular tool, because people who aren't very discerning or dedicated will just punch in a few common ideas into the tool and take the first thing that looks good enough to them. But people on the outside will continue to have an instinctive sense for these default style biases and be able to tell pretty well that an image was produced that way. The escape hatch will be what amounts to AI stock photo industry, where practiced "AI Art" designers prepare images that are more subtle and unique and sell them pretty cheaply. The technology surely can be pushed to the point where a well-crafted image is virtually indistinguishable, but most people are going to just drop "anxious woman at keyboard" or "happy dog with a ball" and there's only so much unique information contained in those prompts so defaults will always reign.
- chfalck 3y ago
  Never? Really?
- MBCook 3y ago
  On my phone this was good enough to fool me. I couldn’t see the back of the monitor. So as presented on the site it looked like a stock image. I didn’t heavily scrutinize it. But without the additional context seen on a desktop it’s not that remarkable.
- eru 3y ago
  > There will always be a bias towards some default settings in whatever popular tool, because people who aren't very discerning or dedicated will just punch in a few common ideas into the tool and take the first thing that looks good enough to them. How is that different from the established practice of using stock photos?
  - noirbot 3y ago
    And most people see stock photos on a blog and see that a bit negatively too. If the ceiling here is stock photos, that's not great, but the issue is that the state of the art is "stock photo but with glaring weirdness"

Topgamer7 3y ago

Honestly if you added just a tad bit of noise. You probably wouldn't notice.

calderknight 3y ago
That's something you can easily prompt for, too.

Larrikin 3y ago

I wonder how many people said similar comments about Photoshop and other computer generated graphics when they were new.

MyFedora 3y ago
No need to go back in time. People say that about CGI in movies today. Studios lie about CGI, and even alter BTS footage. Directors are under NDA. Actors are clueless. Everyone says everything is real to appeal to the CGI bad crowd. Media outlets hype the new practically shot movie. After a few weeks or months after the release, the VFX studios behind the movie show off their work. Turns out it was CGI all along, but nobody cares at that point.
- noirbot 3y ago
  To be fair, a lot of folks who dislike modern CGI dislike it because it's often used poorly and hamhandedly. Would it maybe look better if they did it practically? Possibly, but a lot of the revulsion to it is based on seeing real movies that looked really bad because they did CGI as a shortcut around shooting a movie in the city they say it's set in, or clearly working around having an actor just shoot in an empty room and add other characters in later with no real interaction between them. If you do something poorly, it reflects poorly on the results. If it becomes endemic to do something cheaply and poorly, people will think that method is indicative of cheapness and laziness. It doesn't negate that it may be possible to do it well, but you can't just chide everyone for seeing the trend and reacting to it.
  - MyFedora 2y ago
    It seems we're approaching this from different angles. My concern is that the general public often doesn't realize how impressive CGI can be when done well. This lack of awareness fuels a negative attitude, allowing studios to underpay VFX artists and enabling the Oscars to consistently disrespect the entire VFX industry. A prime example of this disrespect was when they interrupted VFX artists' acceptance speeches with a cocaine joke, instead of letting them thank their families.

wokwokwok 3y ago

I couldn't help laughing at it (https://grumpyolddev.com/images/IMG_2609.JPG https://grumpyolddev.com/images/IMG_2609.JPG). Is that code... on the back of the monitor? ...and the back of the chair behind her? Or is that a giant ipad she's sitting on? hahaha... If you're gonna use an AI image, come onnn... make an effort at least that it's not completely weird and crazy. It takes literally seconds to generate these images and this was the best you could pick?

rk06 3y ago
the image is actually quite good. it is obviously not meant for realistic
sgt 3y ago
Monitors with screens on both sides. Such a brilliant idea! Imagine the cost savings for companies putting hundreds of people on rows and opposite each other.
- doublerabbit 3y ago
  Forced back to the office and sat in the old un-politically correct fashion school order of "boy girl boy girl". Surely an CEO's wet dream.
krupan 3y ago
Hey, at least her hands look pretty normal