4 ms·
> And I know the argument is that investors don't understand quality and this takes away resources from quality writers, but quality writers have lost the war a
by cabalamat 3y ago
> And I know the argument is that investors don't understand quality and this takes away resources from quality writers, but quality writers have lost the war anyways, apparent from the decline in the percentage of quality content.
For some use cases you don't need quality. E.g. where I live there's a free newspaper, the Metro, given out on buses/trains. The articles only exist to get people to read the ads. Most of the articles could probably just as well be written by AI. For all I know, some already are.
But some use cases do need quality, and quality will remain.
- newswasboring 3y ago> But some use cases do need quality, and quality will remain. I believe this too, and that is why I find writers being fearful of LLMs a bit weird.
- ukuina 3y agoWhen content farms were on the rise, people feared reputable sources like NYT would lose out because they cannot compete with the quantity of low-quality articles being churned out. It seems, while NYT is still around, NYT did lose the bar of quality they had along the way, so it was a net loss for good writing.