This seems like an odd error for the article to make. The great pyramid in Giza is nearly 50% taller, was built nearly 2500 years earlier, and still stands today.
Your comment implies that (some) article images are somehow the result of LLMs. I don't think that is the case at all based on the articles' source attributions.
A human artist rendering would not have changed how anyone consumes this article. In fact it may even be less realistic given how artists are not experts in every field and more often than not take wide liberties (see dinosaurs)
We changed the URL from https://greekreporter.com/2025/07/01/lighthouse-alexandria-g... to an article that it appears to have been cribbed from, although it's not entirely clear.
It was the tallest building in the world? And it survived till the 1300s?? Wild.
This seems like an odd error for the article to make. The great pyramid in Giza is nearly 50% taller, was built nearly 2500 years earlier, and still stands today.
A pyramid stretches the limits of what it means to be a "building" though. I don't know that it's a crazy thing to ignore it.
Seems like there's a gulf between the artist's computer rendering and the mosaic.
i dare say archaeologists have multiple depictions of the lighthouse, considering how famous it was.
[dead]
[stub for offtopicness]
[original URL was https://greekreporter.com/2025/07/01/lighthouse-alexandria-g... - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44598029]
Using Midjourney to visualize a historical structure like this is not just lazy, it's very misleading.
Especially when there are actual digital recreations, available for free use under Creative Commons, based on historical information and modern surveys: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PHAROS2013-3000x2250...
I dont understand your comment
Your comment implies that (some) article images are somehow the result of LLMs. I don't think that is the case at all based on the articles' source attributions.
> Interpretation of the Lighthouse of Alexandria. Credit: Midjounrey / Open Domain / Free Use
In addition to not paying artists for interpretations, they also apparently do not pay editors to proofread.
A human artist rendering would not have changed how anyone consumes this article. In fact it may even be less realistic given how artists are not experts in every field and more often than not take wide liberties (see dinosaurs)
If you care, you can hire an artist and a subject matter expert to collaborate and produce accurate (to current scientific knowledge) renderings.
Or even an artist who has prior experience creating accurate renderings from archeological data.
If you care.
I think they're commenting on "Midjounrey"