[jmacd]

Personally, I like that future.

I just don't see any evidence that social graphs are becoming more relevant or even that they exist for many people onboarding on to the internet/apps for the first time. You can use Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and even Facebook now without creating any social graph at all. In fact, it seems like they prefer it that way.

[surgical_fire]

Same here.

People repeat ad nauseam that AI generated content is somehow of worse quality, without ever saying why. It's left as an undeniable fact.

Some point at AI generated content being "fake", which is even more of a head scratcher. What can even be considered fake in that context? As long as it's not misleading, AI or human generated content should amount to the same.

Once I'm consuming content from strangers, why would the creator matter?

[DoughnutHole]

Plenty of content derives its value from perceived authenticity.

Content that is made by humans that is fictitious/constructed is perceived differently from content that is considered "real" - tweets from an American pretending to be in Ukraine would be perceived differently from tweets from someone actually in the warzone. A novel written by someone reflecting such an experience can also affect how we relate to it.

There will certainly be some content where people won't care if it's AI generated or not (certain kinds of fiction, technical writing (provided the reliability issues are resolved), etc) - but a lot of content (fictional and non-fictional) derives it's value from reflecting in some way things that actually happened to actual people. Of course AI could still very much play a part in putting that content to paper, so to speak.