> How is doing original work writing about how much "scientists" are stunned by each natural phenomenon or each trivia found in their job? <…> a bot browsing th

> How is doing original work writing about how much "scientists" are stunned by each natural phenomenon or each trivia found in their job? <…> a bot browsing three thousand scientific journals in minutes and then writing a resume "in the style of BBC news" and other "in the style of Fox news", etc, could do a much better job. A human, in your view (which not everyone shares), has done a bad job in this particular case, but a bot would be liable to the same faults simply because it’s trained on results of human work. So no, it wouldn’t automatically raise the quality of headlines, but it would save money for the company in near term while making the already underpaid writers unemployed. I’m not sure I see a net positive. Here’s a hint: to get better writing, instead of “fire writers and have chatbot do it” try “pay writers more”. If there’s no one practicing and perfecting the art of original writing then its quality can only go downhill, and since chatbot is trained on human writing you can see there’s a vicious circle that gets us nowhere good.