[codingdave]

LLMs do not generate new content, they just shuffle old content together in new ways. So no, it does not kill an industry of people creating new original content. And authors only need to worry about it if they were not adding anything new to the world to begin with, and were instead relying on marketing to sell re-packaged existing content.

[runjake]

As we progress into our inevitable AI future, I have to wonder whether good source materials (like books) will more or less die out and AI-generated content will be shuffled so much that it’s nonsensical and useless, thereby kicking off a new cycle of human-generated output.

I never left RSS but social media like TikTok and X have me wondering if I’m ever reading human output or I’m just consuming and interacting with AI systems.

I recently had a very red-pill dystopian experience where I figured out someone I interacted with on X was an AI. It slipped up on a response that I recognized as a common LLM idiom. Further inquiries confirmed. It turns out that a lot of X in particular is AI bots.

[galfarragem]

I suspect 80% of my X followers are AI bots.

[mnk47]

> LLMs do not generate new content, they just shuffle old content together in new ways

You can say the same thing about most technical books. They're quite often little more than a more digestible summary of what you get in docs and reference manuals, with some toy examples.

[kadushka]

You can even say this about most scientific papers and fiction literature.

[skydhash]

Yeah, but it's structured in a way to encourage learning and "true". A map is good. A map with annotations and routes drawn is better even if the focus is on some landmarks and some elements are missing. A fantasy map is worthless.