On some level you want to believe that even if someone does not come up with a proper concept for a visualization, that they still check what the AI shat out, so that it's at the very least not conceptually wrong and not confusing.

This image isn't just shitty, it's actively worse than having no visualization. They could've generated that, chuckled, and not used it. Just how do you blunder your perception check so badly that you decide to include it anyways?

[–] Gyroplast@pawb.social 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There is the decades-old adage:

Incorrect documentation is worse than no documentation.

That's why I never comment my code. The documentation is in the .h files. The "h" means "help".

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

In my company the h means "haha, what were you expecting?"

[–] ZomieChicken@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

In a proper PnPRPG/Tabletop RPG game, a truly spectacular blunder feels like a success to the person who failed. Walk into a bar and critfail both your Communications check, and the "Oh crap, I failed that badly. Can I save this by doing ______?" follow-up Communications check? You think you did fine, but now the entire bar thinks you are a truly crazy person, and treat you with respect only because they think you're going to shiv them in the neck if they get out of line.

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago

That is exactly the problem. I understand people using AI to make things. I don't understand blindly publishing AI slop without verifying it's correct.

Everybody using genAI has to understand that AI will often be wrong, and frequently ridiculous, and that it's up to you to ensure that what you deliver is correct.

And because nobody likes to review other people's work (most people are terrible and sloppy reviewers), it's better to put yourself in the center: have AI propose ideas or review the result, but you make the thing. That's how you ensure everything passes through your hands.