[Simon_says]

I feel differently. I think there's a place for information that people would like to read as prose but the economics don't make sense to pay someone to write it. I feel like this is an advance that's increasing the wealth of the world because we're going to get more text while spending fewer man-hours on it.

And it's just going to get better over time. It's obvious now when something was written by a bot, but I doubt that's going to be true for much longer.

But, it should probably be labeled as such. Giving such text a human name as the author is indefensible.

[harperlee]

> Giving such text a human name as the author is indefensible.

Why is it indefensible in your opinion? I think it is only fair that if I have a job of writing some output based on some inputs, and I define a process to do that that can be automated, the end product is still my labor, and I can sign it.

[Simon_says]

That's a tough question, and now I'm not so sure I can defend my opinion. It just comes from the fact that (today) the output will not be as good as a human writer. It's disingenuous to pass off a low quality product as a higher quality product, when it will take my time and attention reading it to differentiate them based on quality. Think of it in terms of branding and counterfeiting.

Later, after general AI, I will argue the opposite, that human-written articles should be labeled as such so I don't waste my time on them. ;)