I like the feature request, so I upvoted it. It's a quality-of-life improvement that we should trust our contributors with to use wisely. It's useful, and it saves us time and mental gymnastics.

That said, your answer is definitely a worthwhile feedback to the feature request author (Frank). But it doesn't invalidate the feature itself, nor do I think it really is an argument against the feature at all. In fact, I don't think you'd have brought it up at all hadn't it been for what's likely a bit of frustration with all those posts about generative AI of varying quality.

Lots of great features have a potential for misuse. This is one of them. But it's nothing out of the ordinary, nor does it open us up to more misuse. The problem here isn't the feature. It's the user's choice of what to do with it, and I don't see the feature as encouragement to make low quality posts or otherwise identical cross-posts.

Although I'd give this feature request very low priority in favour of more important things, I agree it would be useful and I would like to see it eventually. I too am wary of obstructing unwanted actions at the expense of also obstructing positive actions.

One thing this feature would allow is pasting in multiple images at once (regardless of whether there is any text involved). I can imagine this being useful in a range of different situations over several different communities.

Andreas‭ Exactly. Don't let OP's dumb actions alter your judgement.

trichoplax‭ yes, e.g. images can be icons/buttons: easy to think of cases where a text has a few icons/buttons. Pain to upload individually.

Andreas‭ This isn't specifically about the posts by Franck Dernoncourt‭. Codidact has a cross-posting problem since long before he became active here. At some point, over 60% of PU posts were copied from other sites.

And that's still not an argument against the feature. It's an argument in favour of stronger curation and moderation.