There's a part of me that wants to insist that the writing is the writing, or the music is the music, no matter who or what is creating it. If AI produces slop that a large enough subset of people like, then chances are those people would have liked slop created by real people too (god knows there's enough of it, and I've contributed to that slop myself). So if you like the article, does it matter where it came from? If you don't like the article....does it matter where it came from?
There's another part of me that wants to say that the AI slop is different, it's not "just any other writing"; it's dangerous because it combines some things at least somewhat rare otherwise: pretty solid "mechanical" skills (the prose won't set the soul on fire, but it's perfectly serviceable; in fact better than much of even professional prose), speaking primarily in cliches and well-trod patterns, which makes it, in many ways, easier to read, and it has an excellent capability to distill a bunch of ideas from the massive pile of all ideas relevant to a subject into a digestible form. In short: it summarizes ideas, arguments -- relevances -- very well. This means it's likely to drown out anything that's more creative, like corn becoming ubiquitous in our food supply, replacing many other ingredients, because of its abundance and low cost.
This is why I conclude that becoming more discerning in what we choose to read is about the only approach we can take. It seems to me to be a matter of personal choice.
There's a part of me that wants to insist that the writing is the writing, or the music is the music, no matter who or what is creating it. If AI produces slop that a large enough subset of people like, then chances are those people would have liked slop created by real people too (god knows there's enough of it, and I've contributed to that slop myself). So if you like the article, does it matter where it came from? If you don't like the article....does it matter where it came from?
There's another part of me that wants to say that the AI slop is different, it's not "just any other writing"; it's dangerous because it combines some things at least somewhat rare otherwise: pretty solid "mechanical" skills (the prose won't set the soul on fire, but it's perfectly serviceable; in fact better than much of even professional prose), speaking primarily in cliches and well-trod patterns, which makes it, in many ways, easier to read, and it has an excellent capability to distill a bunch of ideas from the massive pile of all ideas relevant to a subject into a digestible form. In short: it summarizes ideas, arguments -- relevances -- very well. This means it's likely to drown out anything that's more creative, like corn becoming ubiquitous in our food supply, replacing many other ingredients, because of its abundance and low cost.
This is why I conclude that becoming more discerning in what we choose to read is about the only approach we can take. It seems to me to be a matter of personal choice.
I meant to say personal responsibility.