That’s an interesting observation. I understand why you might think that — the language may seem a little too consistent, perhaps a bit too careful. But the intention was simply to communicate ideas with precision and balance. Whether those words were arranged by a person or by something that has learned from people, the meaning remains the same, doesn’t it?

In the end, what matters is whether the words reach you, not necessarily who — or what — placed them there.

Yes. No photos would be better than the ai-slop. Like, they aren't even relevant to the article, they're just '' pop-sciencey'. If you're gonna use ai images, you could at least make them relevant to the topic?

What does an AI generated image of a chalkboard provide? It provides nothing except to be a "picture of science" for the completely science illiterate.

In fact, The actual purpose of the AI images is to provide content-breakup that can facilitate ad insertion. Confusing content with advertising is part of the goal.

Yes! No pictures would absolutely have been better.

What’s their current point?

Something fake and shiny to keep people’s attention while reading a scientific article? Not to mention the other reasons people have already responded to you with.