zlacker

>>gwintr+(OP)
I don't think this article was written by AI - at least, I am not sure it is - but the way it is divided up, the bullet lists and "key quotes" and breaking a relatively short article into even shorter sections, makes it feel AI generated.

Sounds like an interesting book but the article says remarkably little.

>>ivraat+s5
> feel AI generated

The apparently-AI artwork doesn't help. From some googling it appears to be a direct rip-off of this: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-great-amer...

>>re+s8
Disagree, the article's lead image is actually better. The Getty image is way too cluttered, and just artistically uninspired in general. If the author got his hero image by feeding the Getty image to AI and asking for a cleaned-up, focused version, then that's doing it right in my book, ethical considerations aside.

There really should be a way to credit the original source image without being compelled to actually use it. The image in the article isn't a "rip off," but it is a derivative work made without permission, and the law doesn't currently make a distinction AFAIK.