@gainfullydozy Fair enough/touché. And “the hill sprouted a second Peace Tower” is a really good zinger…made me chuckle…well done on that.But your broader framing here is way too reductive and unfair.

“AI uses energy, therefore any AI illustration cheapens climate advocacy” is not analysis; it’s a false binary zero-sum and silly ideological purity test. AI’s footprint should be carefully measured, regulated and powered by clean electricity, like every other major digital technology. And also incorporate a bunch of great new techs to lessen its thirst/water consumption.

Meanwhile, my article is about flooded homes, insurance gaps, emergency preparedness, flood mapping, land-use planning and infrastructure. That is the substance. I’m not going to pretend the climate crisis hinges on whether I (sloppily) used an editorial image generator. It doesn’t. Not even close.

@BlakeHamiltonCA @gainfullydozy if the thumbnail is clearly faked for click bait why should I even risk the time to work out if the content is slop, propaganda or well reasoned?

@awoodland @gainfullydozy : that’s a totally fair reaction. Mea culpa. You’re 100% right - a bad intro image and thumbnail can absolutely make people distrust the article itself, and I own that completely. For the record,I didn’t create the image; I found it in a rushed/fatigued Google image search. I should have looked harder for a better genuine photo/image, instead using a poor AI-generated visual because it was clickbaity attention-grabbing. Bad call.

That said, I disagree with the conclusion that jumps from “bad image used” to “therefore the whole content is propaganda/AI slop.” NO. I spent hours researching and writing that article myself. A lapse in promo photo judgement shouldn’t invalidate that effort or the substance of what I said. That’s illogical and very unfair. It’s an understandable trust doubt reaction - I do get that - but it is still a leap.

I’d ask that you try to set aside your own biases and read/evaluate on its own merits, please.