What Would You Say You Do Around Here?
There is a sentiment that some “light” usages of AI are okay because it simply reduces the friction a bit on content creation. For example, Kelly writes:
But if AI can be helpful for things like blog production. I know, for example, that blog posts with an image are several times more likely to attract someone’s attention than one without an image. I lack time and artistic skill to create my own images, but I can craft a prompt and get a suitable illustration in seconds. This is hard to ignore, and I will continue to avail myself of the AI services that provide image generation from time to time.
On the one hand, I get it. If you perceive a gap and there is a tool available to bridge it, why not?
On the other, much larger, much heavier hand, what do you imagine is going to happen next? Not in a “cog in the agentic death-march” kind of way, but on a much more practical level. You generate an image for a blog post to attract more attention. Supposing that that advice still works here in 2026 – I have my doubts – you get the traffic at the expense of blogs that don’t. So, those other blogs start generating images too. Now… what? The competitive advantage is gone. Who gets the clicks?
“Blogging isn’t a competition though!” Then why do you care about having a generated image at all?
Not trying to single Kelly out, or really any of the specific AI enthusiasts still in my Feeds. You do you. It’s a transformative technology for coding and a few other industries, yada yada yada. I just happen to agree with the general sentiment of Anarchae:
If I asked a question on this site and got a response and went back and forth a bit, I had a pleasant interaction with a human being and feel good about the distro and its community.
If I later find out that person just copy pastes questions into an LLM and then copy pastes back in a response, or is a full on bot-run account, there is a feeling of betrayal. I thought I had a genuine human connection, but it wasn’t, it was just a computer program. Now that sours my opinion of the distro and I probably won’t bother coming back. I was given the equivilant of the Customer Service Chatbot, who would be happy about that?
No one with an internet connection is hurting for content. No doubt you could vibe code a blog tonight that automatically prompts ChatGPT to spit out a randomized topic-of-the-day post every 24 hours. Or six hours. Or 15-minutes. We aren’t here for that. We aren’t here for the AI image that is only vaguely related to the topic at hand and is more meant to be clickbait. We aren’t here for the grammatically perfect, literal textbook outlined prose with the phone emojis for some reason. Every single AI refinement makes you less distinguishable from every other (presumed) person also on the gear.
Be human. Have messy human thoughts with the wet meat between your ears. Who are we trying to impress? None of us are making any money on this and it ain’t because we got some syntax wrong.
Or don’t, I guess.
Posted on August 4, 2026, in Commentary, Philosophy and tagged AI, Blaugust, ChatGPT, Competition, Wet Meat. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.
In An Age 
I have so many ideas for posts on AI. Not sure how many are going to get written. Maybe I should get an AI to write some of them for me.
The grammar thing, though… some bloggers have been extolling the virtues of grammar checkers from long before GenAI was a thing. I always thought the whole idea was dumb. Grammar and spelling are suggestions and conventions at best. Just read three grammar books one after another and see how far they diverge. Spelling just needs to be recognisable enough to convey the meaning.
I don’t think you’re going to convince the pedants about that, though, and I don’t think it makes much difference whether they use AI or an old-school grammar checker or even if they blog with a grammar textbook beside them on the desk. Some people’s prose is never going to sing.
LikeLike
That will never be a problem you have, my friend.
LikeLike
While there certainly is a point to be made about the slippery slope of AI usage.
I don’t feel this angle works.
You are basically stating: ‘If you improve (your blog), others will also and the playing field is even again so don’t improve.’ I don’t really agree with that statement.
If Kelly hired an artist/scoured the internet manually for pictures, that would generally applauded, but in your example that is equally bad.
I do agree with the eventual conclusion about AI usage.
LikeLike
Personally, I feel like completely irrelevant pictures – AI or not – add zero additional, real value to anyone. There are supposedly “studies” that show a photo can double the “engagement” with a post, but what does not really mean in any particular context? Literal clickbait also demonstratively increases engagement. Is that what we’re doing around here?
If you are writing about your cat, then a picture of your cat is relevant to the topic and does add meaning/connection/etc. I try to always have screenshots available for the games I review, because people may not know the game looks like, and may become more intrigued afterwards.
Pictures actually conveying 1,000 words is good. Pictures simply because “you need pictures” is bad.
LikeLike
Sure irrelevant pictures are bad, but noone ever spoke about that. Wouldn’t need AI for irrelevant pictures either.
LikeLike
When I use AI pictures, they are relevant. Also, I like images on blog posts. This Blaugust I am not using any AI images at all, and I don’t think I was ever a super-heavy user. But seeing people use it doesn’t bother me as long as it isn’t crap.
Work uses AI images all the time, and their pictures are always crap. Bugs me every time.
LikeLike