If it was used to replace generic stock image with beer, I might be fine with it. As an illustration generic picture of beer cup without powder or branded packaging would have been sufficient. But being so specific it contains fake brand, powder makes it seem like it represents the actual product thus giving a misleading impression about the structure of powder and it's capabilities to produce foam.
Does it though? First thing I thought when I opened the page and saw that image was that the granules looked quote large and that it would take some effort to make them dissolve nicely. Why have an photo realistic image if its not an actual photo, that might or might not missrepresent the product.
Why not take the bring the cost down to its logical conclusion and have AI write the story from the press release and other content on the internet?
Definitely not proper journalism.
So I agree with this sentiment in this instance.
Take for example Elliott Erwitt's iconic image of Nixon pointing his finger at Khrushchev when debating about... cabbage soup vs meat!
It's a powerful image that got completely misinterpreted to the point that helped Nixon become president of the US.
With that amount of transparency, I have no problems.
It’s like a drawing.
The photo is meant to be part of the story. To just have the computer make up a photo seems to kind of miss the mark for me.
I think part of what I don’t like is that even though the image is labeled as AI generated, it still may be misleading to readers. It’s adding fabricated details to the story that will get in to people’s minds. If this becomes commonplace it’s going to lead to a lot more misinformation.