[rafterydj]

Disagree. There's a power imbalance between how easy it is to write something by hand and slap a human label next to AI output. "Let the reader decide" is not fair in a world where the reader then sees >90% AI writing in internet search results.

[627467]

Remember how the internet works: you request the content. Web content is not a highway billboard you didnt ask for. If you found a "crappy" content consider your referral. We should all consider our sourcing. The world doesn't owe us anything

[justanotherjoe]

This kind of thinking assumes quantitative changes never result in qualitative change. Which is demonstrably false. Obviously there are thresholds where phase transitions happen.

Take saltwatwer and cell. After some threshold of saltiness is passed, the water flow reverses from into the cell to away from the cell. And the cell frikkin dies.

[nh23423fefe]

This kind of argument doesn't bother to demonstrate the parallel in the logic. This bad form of argumentation should be labelled non rigorous. Then I would've have read it at all.

You never bothered explaining why saltwater is ai writing and readers are cells, nor what the parallel of immersion or osmotic pressure would be.

You lazily wanted me to fill in the details and be convinced. Why did you create this bad argument and leave it unlabelled.

[solid_fuel]

> Web content is not a highway billboard you didnt ask for.

Web content discovery is almost universally funded by advertisers… while yes the core technology is requests based, the things you get recommended are harder to control.

Unfortunately slop is very cheap to produce compared to human generated content and literally endless, so content providers have an incentive to push as much as their users will tolerate.