I fail to see how the author expects to make a valid point while using generative art to illustrate his statements. The text is okay, though, and raises valid points, but author himself falls another victim to the shortcut of producing blog images.
I had a similar reaction, though somewhat weaker, and had to take a double take at the images. On the one hand, at first glance, they aren't as mindlessly hopeless as most of other ai-generated imagery. They even make some kind of vague and superficial sense. But of course, if you look closely and try to decipher the details, it all falls apart.
Why do authors think that images like these are better than no images at all?
My point here being - the images are synthetic. Not questioning their utility to the article, quality, or other aesthetics. It's a challenge to the intent to use synthetic imagery while writing against getting too much used to synthetic text (and the lack of personal craft in it).
Does the author fail to recognize his own actions, is this failure on his part or a reinforcement of his fears...? Perhaps not a complete contradiction to his general thesis.
I don't personally like the images. I think he could've put together some sort of collage that would go along better.