[cpersona]

I feel the same way, but I was struggling to understand why. Could you explain why you would not want to read content generated by AI? If you’re reading an article from CNET, it’s probably for the information value and so therefore should be no different from that perspective. Are you looking for opinions or other color as well that the AI won’t be able to provide?

[pigtailgirl]

-- for me it feel like the final nail in the coffin - in this area - i think - the race to the bottom removed ability of human to say what they want - be provocative - inspiring - forward thinking - now even the people who are supposed to thoughtfully give word view - journalist + reporters - seem to be at: what a camp wants to hear - not what they want to say - feel like AI generated is maybe the final straw in this? - hard to explain but feels bad --

[politician]

The problem with consuming AI generated content for the human reader in 2023, is that the content is more likely to be in the uncanny valley and requires the reader to exercise extreme vigilance to triple-check priors, facts and conclusions. There is no human author that can be held accountable for lies or misrepresentations of facts. There is only the language model immune to cancellation on Twitter.

When the content on the other end is written by a sapient human (or, eventually, an AGI), as much vigilance is not needed. Vigilance is always necessary, but the level required for parsing the output of language models is much higher.

This requirement is why publishers like CNET quietly mislead their audience and do not clearly mark each submission as AI generated. If it were not an abomination and an abuse of the reader to the gain of the publisher, then they would proudly claim to be doing it.