We're not far from nearly all future computer code being being generated by AI because at this point AI-generated code is about as good as human-generated code, when prompted by competent humans.
This article assumes we'll never get to that point with writing. I know we're on a writing platform, but it's not impossible to see a day when it's much more difficult to differentiate AI slop from human slop.
When that happens, I don't think it'll matter what entity generated the text (just like it doesn't matter what entity generates code). What will matter is who is the creative director of that output, who approves the final output, and whether that output is actually effective.
Love the analysis! I've been dealing with how to handle the rise of AI content, particularly on LinkedIn. I'm finishing a book and trying to figure out how to create awareness.
Read a book "0-10K followers in 30 Days" (clearly AI written) that gives the step by step to use Claude to create a social media audience. I played around with the advice and two things happened. First, it made me realize how much of the platform has become AI created, and two, made me feel icky. I had to ask myself whether I'm going to be algorithmically or authentically driven. It doesn't mean not using AI at all, but the "inefficient" amount of human input needs to lead.
Maybe I'm a Luddite looking to create quality fabric in a world driven to consume fast fashion content, but I hope you're right that eventually we find an equilibrium that values greater human contributions.
Seeing that there are AI slop YouTube channels pulling in that much dough was very depressing.
"Which brings us to the concept of Maximum Allowable Slop (MAS)..."
Hm, is this kind of an application of the market for lemons concept? Or maybe a sort of descendant?
We're not far from nearly all future computer code being being generated by AI because at this point AI-generated code is about as good as human-generated code, when prompted by competent humans.
This article assumes we'll never get to that point with writing. I know we're on a writing platform, but it's not impossible to see a day when it's much more difficult to differentiate AI slop from human slop.
When that happens, I don't think it'll matter what entity generated the text (just like it doesn't matter what entity generates code). What will matter is who is the creative director of that output, who approves the final output, and whether that output is actually effective.
Love the analysis! I've been dealing with how to handle the rise of AI content, particularly on LinkedIn. I'm finishing a book and trying to figure out how to create awareness.
Read a book "0-10K followers in 30 Days" (clearly AI written) that gives the step by step to use Claude to create a social media audience. I played around with the advice and two things happened. First, it made me realize how much of the platform has become AI created, and two, made me feel icky. I had to ask myself whether I'm going to be algorithmically or authentically driven. It doesn't mean not using AI at all, but the "inefficient" amount of human input needs to lead.
Maybe I'm a Luddite looking to create quality fabric in a world driven to consume fast fashion content, but I hope you're right that eventually we find an equilibrium that values greater human contributions.