[Quarrelsome]

maybe but its not like people don't also do these things (erroneous sentences, weird fluff). I mean editors exist specifically to slap that shit out of writers.

That said, it's mildly compelling. I just fear that our future is gonna be full of this and the idea of the false positive is so brutal that I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt.

[antihipocrat]

Perhaps we end up demanding no doubt. Human only community meet ups to discuss and share ideas, music and art. No recording allowed.

The Internet becomes primarily a passive stream of information vetted by government and Mega Corps, just like the TVs of old. Except for the nifty buy with one click button of course

[lanyard-textile]

Digital artists are expected now to have at least some recorded timelines of their creations.

It's easy to do with digital tools today, like Procreate, so it is increasingly suspicious not to have any.

[doright]

We will rue the day that image generation evolves beyond diffusion and AI is able to use digital brushes and blending directly on a canvas.

[Quarrelsome]

you could probably already fake that to some extent with the latest video models.

[ThrowawayR2]

There have been mail spam, link farming, non-AI slop content sites, and other forms of scamming looking to take advantage of people on the Internet for something like a quarter century by now. Even HN's /new submissions queue is filled with such rubbish. There is zero reason to give any benefit of the doubt on the Internet for anything and there hasn't been for years, absolutely zero.

[Quarrelsome]

> There is zero reason to give any benefit of the doubt on the Internet for anything and there hasn't been for years, absolutely zero.

I feel like that's just an argument for cruelty. The issue is that generative content makes it hard to tell and people confidently call borderline issues now, more than they used to.