[Llamamoe]

AI-written articles tend to be far more regurgitative, lower in value, and easier to ghostwrite with intent to manipulate the narrative.

Economic value or not, AI-generated content should be labeled, and trying to pass it as human-written should be illegal, regardless of how used to AI content people do or don't become.

[RobotToaster]

My theory is that AI writes the way it does because it was trained on a lot of modern (organic) journalism.

So many words to say so little, just so they can put ads between every paragraph.

[charcircuit]

That is low quality articles in general. Have you never seen how hundreds of news sites will regurgitate the same story of another. This was happening long before AI. High quality AI written articles will still be high value.

[orwin]

Did you go on grokipedia at release? I still sometimes loose myself reading stuff on Wikipedia, I guarantee you that this can't happen on grok, so much noise between facts it's hard to enjoy.

[charcircuit]

Yes I did go immediately on release. I was finally able to correct articles that have been inaccurate on Wikipedia for years.

[orwin]

So you noticed how poor the prose was? Really unbearable to read.

[charcircuit]

I found it fine to read and it handled controversial subjects much better than Wikipedia.

[orwin]

I don't care about that, that wasn't the point, no one truly care about that. I wanted to know if the feeling of reading meandering writing that can't go to the point when reading AI-generated content was only mine, or if other people who "wiki walk" a lot did the same on Grokipedia (basically spend hours clicking on links and reading random pages). I didn't manage to do it because the writing was too "bad" for me (and i was taken by wiki walk on wookiepedia once, so my tolerance is high). I just wanted to know if it was shared. Did you wiki walk on grokipedia, or do you just use it for "controversial subjects"?