[ravenstine]

I'm not so sure of a concrete answer to that. However, what I think we may see is that the people who publish their non-AI content would do so if their content is so novel (or contradictory to the mainstream) that AI information sources would not yet behave as a substitute. The era where tons of people publish tons of crap online is already in decline, but particularly valuable content may still find a place online.

In an abstract sense, I can imagine someone wanting self help advice may actually not want it from an AI, but a human instead because the domain of that advice would be highly dependent on individual experience or opinion that AI couldn't reliably provide. There would be too much risk in an AI providing purely specious advice that doesn't apply to reality.

For instance, a generic AI available to the public probably will not provide you non-mainstream dietary advice. An AI giving dating advice may ultimately default to reductive "boomer" advice and be unwilling to give controversial advice based on real world experience that may be superior.

Though it may not be forever, humans still have the advantage of individual initiative and experience in the physical world. If anything about your life is extraordinary or if you're radical in any way, which describes a minority of the public, there may still be a place for their sort of content.