[Sophira]

It depends on the metric you use.

Yes, AI text could be considered higher quality than traditional SEO, but at the same time, it's also very much not, because it always sounds like it might be authoritative, but you could be reading something hallucinated.

In the end, the text was still only ever made to get visitors to websites, not to provide accurate information.

[jsjohnst]

> it's also very much not, because it always sounds like it might be authoritative, but you could be reading something hallucinated

I keep hearing this repeated over and over as if it’s a unique problem for AI. This is DEFINITELY true of human generated content too.

[tpmoney]

> it's also very much not, because it always sounds like it might be authoritative, but you could be reading something hallucinated.

People telling lies on the internet is an old enough and well known enough issue that it’s appeared in children’s TV shows. One need only dive down the rabbit hole of 9/11 “truthers” to see how much completely made up bullshit is published online as absolute fact with authoritative certainty. AI is the hot new thing and gets all the headlines, but Scottish Wikipedia was a problem long before AI and long after society largely settled its mind about how reliable Wikipedia is.