[jefe_]

The challenge is that AI generated content will only register as garbage to those who fall 1-2 standard deviations away from the mean interest level for whatever content the AI is producing. For everybody else, it will typically be a 'good enough' story, recipe, video, etc. Several months ago, I wanted to cook chicken curry, so I googled and chose a top result. The recipe was fine, but it wasn't what I wanted. I then googled for a new recipe, this time more carefully vetting the ingredients. The recipe was an improvement, but still not what I wanted. Finally, I used NYT Cooking as my search engine, and the recipe was excellent. If I didn't have a strong preference, and know exactly what I wanted, the first recipe would have been perfectly suitable. The danger is that demand for 'advanced sources' erodes to the point that these publications/content creators are either forced to adopt the AI and turn to garbage or go out of business.

[JoeAltmaier]

Strangely, recipes in particular are generally untested and so faulty as to fail when done strictly according to the written instructions.

That might make it a little harder to recognize when an AI is 'pulling your leg'

[TeMPOraL]

Agreed. A person who cooks regularly will just adapt on the fly and might even not realize they're correcting an error in the recipe. A person who cooks infrequently will stick to the recipe, fail, and then blame themselves for their own inexperience. This is already the case with human-produced recipes, and, as you say, it'll make it harder to recognize you're dealing with AI-generated nonsense instead of regular human mistakes or occasional cluelessness.