Well, what would stop someone equating it with human-produced bad content? It's not like this is a uniquely AI phenomenon, "bad" content existed three years ago

Well, what would stop someone equating it with human-produced bad content? It's not like this is a uniquely AI phenomenon, "bad" content existed three years ago too. I think you should mostly just not use superficial characteristics like "it includes AI generated art" as much of a signal, and judge it the same way you'd judge anything else - is it from a publication you trust? Is the subject matter of interest? Does the headline and/or skimming the description + first few sentences make it seem interesting? All of those are better signals of whether it's worth reading something than superficial characteristics. After all, "don't judge a book by its cover" is a pretty common saying for a reason.