[penguinpower]

This type of behavior will only serve to cheapen content across the board. At this point, even the word "content" betrays the emptiness of it all - people don't pay for bags and boxes of "content" do they?

AI "content" is a nothing-burger. It is inherently devoid of "value" and seems like a last-ditch effort to squeegee the remaining drops of attention off of everyone's eyeballs without actually investing in genuine creativity.

As more and more of this dross floods the Internet, the very purpose of the web may be called into question. How can we share information with each other if the world's library/archive becomes the world's bot-poop landfill?

The Internet has evolved from a shared information system to so much more, so I hope this unfortunate phase will soon pass and ML tech can be put to more appropriate use than just crapping out low-effort "content" all over the place.

[JohnFen]

> At this point, even the word "content" betrays the emptiness of it all

In all fairness, "content" telegraphed that from the first time it was used in the online sense. I still don't understand why people are willing to use it to refer to their own work.

[nradov]

This might be naive, but I kind of hope that AI content spam will destroy the advertising supported web.

[deebosong]

I'd be very, very curious to hear viable alternatives to ad supported models, that aren't based on how major companies have been doing it for the past 20 years (or longer?), where they make it free, then sneak in subscriptions, then over time, start increasing subscription costs.

I feel like it's not just the companies, but consumers/ audiences don't want to pay for most internet services unless it's something like infrastructure services where it somehow viscerally seems "sensible" and "right" to do so.

[jddj]

I'd read more of your writing.