These statements seem to be in contradiction

> The short version: Ars Technica is written by humans. AI doesn’t write our stories, generate our images, or put words in anyone’s mouth.

> Our creative team may use AI tools in the production of certain visual material

Something that bothers me is that people who value their organic output (Ars is written word, obviously they care more about the writing than the thumbnails) seem to treat their work as more deserving of human generation than the associated work. Which seems fine on its face, but the problem is that it's devaluing the marketplace for original human content.

Paying people to create original media even when it's not the primary output of your media organization is important to keeping the craft alive in general.

I see this all the time locally, where arts organizations will use generative AI for everything but their own product, not realizing that the very use of it at all is destroying art.