[TheRealPomax]

You could just have read the "about" page. Who cares if there's AI involved, this is a dad who made a thing for his own kids, and opened it up for everyone else. So what if they used AI if it does what they hoped it'd do and their kids like it?

[nemomarx]

Fine for them, but why would I use it instead of using my own AI for my own kids?

It's like reading other people's chat gpt conversations, not very interesting or useful.

[IshKebab]

> So what if they used AI

It matters because it's a very strong signal of quality.

[snapcaster]

I'd say it's a strong signal of (lack of) effort, which then correlates with quality

[lynndotpy]

And, crucially, the quality _is_ low. At a bare minimum, the generated safety bulletpoints should be able to anticipate safety concerns with following the generated activities. The people publishing the posts should read them first and check for safety concerns.

The generated posts don't meet this bare minimum. For example, some posts have activities for toddlers involving string or rope, but do not mention the non-obvious strangulation risks. This website should not have been published in this state.

[watwut]

Because, if you AI generated the activities too, the site is useless. We can ChatGpt generate activities too and get the same result.