Could you elaborate please? Genuine question.

The image at the top of the article is obviously AI generated so it indicates that the rest of the article might be as well.

That is ridiculous. Having a hero image being AI (most people are crap with image editing) doesn't meant the rest of it is.

They didn't say "is" they said "might be," which is a reasonable assumption to make given how ubiquitous the use of AI has become. One has to assume all content one encounters online is at best AI assisted and at worst entirely AI generated unless some explicit statement to the contrary is made, and even then, one should doubt.

They are complaining about the hero image (which is pretty inoffensive). Which is ridiculous. It is no different than using a stock image asset for some decoration, which is what people would have used before the current AI tools. Therefore I consider it unreasonable on the face of it.

I shouldn't really have to explain this, but here we are.

I don't care about how you wish to split hairs because I made a minor mistake, nor do I care about your rationalisations for an obviously ridiculous critique.

AI slop is ruining the web. You may consider it unreasonable but most of the rest of the internet disagrees. Get over yourself.

Understood ... thanks for clarifying ... I'm genuinely intrigued. You're right that image is generated by a generative model, however my humble blog content .... I do write myself. "Don't judge a book by its cover!" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The dude is being ridiculous. I use AI / Stock Photos for cover images. Plenty of people are fine with it.