I'm sure I'm in the minority, but the mere suggestion that some purportedly creative "content" (ugh, that word sounds like saying "sausage meat") is AI generated makes me completely lose interest. Soon enough that might make me lose interest in whole swathes of the internet, but I can't deny that's been an ongoing process regardless for a while anyways.
The problem I have is that it's usually junk fluff pieces with way too much text for SEO optimization.
I feel anything computer generated should be short bullet points or comparison tables, not long form text as it's just not good at that.
For example think of a blog post where the author walks you through its thought process, trial and error and ultimate solution. That is very humane and relatable, something an LLM can approximate/copy but it will never be genuine. I'd prefer in that case just the raw solution, not a fake and deceptive walkthrough.
I agree with the sentiment, at the same time commercial drivers will fill the pipes with low-quality content quickly, because $MONEY. The literate, subtle and artsy are once again buried in commercial content. The only way forward is rebuilding chains of editorial recommendation. Ordinary browsing will become a junk-fest. It appears the pandora's box is opened once again.
What was really jarring recently was to browse literate, subtle and artsy content only to be repeatedly interrupted by genuinely offensive and/or borderline scam content ads, then back to the chosen content. real.
Whole swaths of the internet became uninteresting to me a long time ago. AI promises to make the rest of it worthless to me as well.
The fact that AI models are being trained on public-facing web content without the consent of the authors has already driven me and others to remove all our content from the public-facing web, as there is no other way to protect ourselves. That eliminates a large part of the value of the web right there.
I see no other strategies that could possibly work. All it takes is one crawler to get through or ignore your defenses and your work has been used to help train a model. At that point, the horse is out of the barn. Any partial defense seems the same as no defense to me on this point.
But it depends on what you're trying to protect. My concern isn't actually that my content may get reproduced through an LLM. I just don't want any of my work to be used to develop or improve these models, period.
Google only cares about these types of sites now, because they are the ideal customer for Google Ads. They churn out content constantly, they advertise heavily, with Google getting a cut of every click and impression.
And let's face it, YouTube is basically QVC for electronics, toys and makeup, all multi-billion $ industries that Google is happy to slap ads on top of.
There's some things I really care about the human experience for, but much content it just matters to me if it's a joy to ride.
The creative classes already trusted this stuff the first round in 2008+, and it ate their lunch.
i'm a writer. the only thing i can do is keep making my art with the insight of the human condition, an insight that an ai can try to mimic but will never be able to replace. and i think that people will try to seek out human created art because they're bored by AI mimicry, they'll want real connection with a piece of art or a novel etc.
the real ones will continue to make their art regardless of market success, a payday, or technological changes
but my partner is a journalist and we're not over here freaking out. perpetual lay offs have always been a problem in media during our lifetime. we'll adapt.
The truly creative are just looking to do the same things over and over lol.
Maybe very little in the scheme of things but not a 'view' or click from me.