I genuinely don't understand this trend of slapping AI slop on top of your article. I've even seen good articles do it.
Authors do it because it supposedly leads to better engagement, shows up bigger on social media, and breaks up the text. But generally, unless the visual content meaningfully adds to the text content, users will largely ignore it.
Wasn't there anything relevant available? Screenshots of the new tools in a before/after collage perhaps?
What you have in civil government is a lot of people and a lot of time -- turning that into inputs for acceptance on the new codebase is super smart -- and using only their expertise (legacy system screen caps), but relying on the AI to do all the tech spec work feels super smart.
Ah, that's what the AI ingredient is.
Seems reasonable, the kind of drudge work that gets avoided because nobody wants to do it. Requirements-capture what the existing system does. This often fails in the real world because it's done at some distance: either writing down what they think the system does, or want it to do, or getting political interference to pretend the process is something other than it is, but ignoring the actual working on the ground process.
