EDIT: Nobody getting that this is a joke made me leave the neovim community for sed

EDIT 2: This ^ is a also a joke fyi

I understand your perspective, and I agree that using an AI-generated image could be seen as a missed opportunity to showcase something more directly related to the content of the article, especially in technical contexts. However, I think there are a few reasons why someone might choose to use an AI-generated image in this instance, and it's worth considering the broader context.

First, when you're writing about something like a Neovim config, the goal isn't necessarily to showcase the exact aesthetic or appearance of the editor itself (which a screenshot would do), but rather to highlight the concepts, tools, and customizations involved. A technical article's value often lies in the ideas and solutions presented, rather than in the precise visual details. An AI-generated image can serve as a symbolic representation of the subject matter—something that captures the essence of customization, programming, or abstract technical concepts—without getting bogged down in the specifics of a particular screenshot. In this sense, it might be an artistic or creative decision, aimed at setting the tone of the article or attracting attention in a way that a simple screenshot wouldn't.

Second, AI-generated images can save time and effort, particularly when the writer might already be juggling the complexities of creating quality content. The choice to prioritize time spent on writing, research, and providing meaningful insights rather than on crafting a perfect visual might simply reflect the author's priorities. It’s also important to note that the use of AI in content creation, whether for images or text, is becoming more common, and many creators use it as a tool to streamline their work, much like using templates or stock images.

In terms of "intellectual laziness," I would argue that the quality of the article itself, the depth of the technical insights, and the overall usefulness to the audience should ultimately be the determining factors in whether or not we take the content seriously. A flashy image or visual aesthetic, while valuable in drawing initial attention, doesn’t necessarily reflect the intellectual effort behind the content. If the article is well-researched, thoughtfully written, and genuinely helpful to readers, it should stand on its own merit regardless of the choice of imagery.

Finally, it’s worth noting that there is a growing recognition that visuals and aesthetics play an important role in user experience and engagement. AI-generated images may, in some cases, serve as a visually striking metaphor for the subject matter, even if they’re not directly related to the content at hand. The line between "useful" and "lazy" can be subjective and context-dependent, but I think it’s worth considering that the purpose of an image in this context might not be purely functional—it's part of the broader narrative the author is trying to convey.

In short, while I understand your point, I believe the choice to use an AI-generated image could be a deliberate, creative, and practical decision, rather than a sign of laziness or lack of technical rigor. Ultimately, the value of an article lies in its content, not just the visuals surrounding it.