Especially if they're using outside talent. Hiring a graphical artist for article images is common.

Some of those artists will obviously be using AI to some extent now. There is a skill curve to getting AI generators to provide useful outputs. Whether that's to generate a unique base to work from, or to fill an environment quickly, etc.

Some artists use it sparingly to add to their traditional skills, others use it as a crutch, and some people are just liars trying to make a quick buck by submitting pure AI slop. If it is used for assistance minimally, as it should for something like this, it will be hard to see since it would be used in places that aren't the focus anyway.

It's up to the end customer to determine what amount of AI assistance they're willing to accept, and zero is a completely valid option. And that's what should be submitted. In this modern AI art era that's guaranteed to be part of their graphical contracts.

True, a lot of sources are mixing in more and more auto-generated stuff.

For those who don't know, "ail" (loosely prenounced "A-I" with a French accent) is the French name for garlic. Thus the pun.

Futurism writing about the onion, so… yes, no, maybe, sorta, almost, but not quite? It’s clearly an edge case.

Eh, sounds like they grabbed a stock photo to edit into the main image without seeing that it was AI. It's not like they produced it despite their commitment not to, and they pulled it and apologized when it was pointed out.

I don't really feel disappointment that they picked the wrong stock photo.