4 ms·

Everyone in the world knows that with current AI, you need probably a quarter of content writers to deliver the same output. To pretend that there is a possibi

Everyone in the world knows that with current AI, you need probably a quarter of content writers to deliver the same output. To pretend that there is a possibility that there would be no effects on hiring is foolish. Not saying it would increase unemployment, just shift the work.

Pxtl 2y ago
If you could replace 3 of your 4 writers with gen AI then they weren't writing content they were writing filler. AIs write noise, not signal.
- brigandish 2y ago
  It’s irrelevant whether they were writing filler or not, they had jobs, and someone was paying them, which means their produce had some value, both to the publisher and the consumer. Otherwise, they’d simply be cut at some point, not replaced.
  - lucianbr 2y ago
    By this reasoning mob enforcers produce value to the society too. They have jobs, get paid and so on. So no, it's not true. Just because someone was paid it does not mean they produced some value. The filler might have been a way to trick consumers into paying attention to ads. This is valuable for the company with the ad, but not the consumer.
    - brigandish 2y ago
      > By this reasoning mob enforcers produce value to the society too. I didn't write that they were producing value to society. Nice way to misrepresent an argument. Also, mob enforcers produce value to their employers, which is who pays them. Who pays the writers making filler? They're the ones who see the value in it, what does society have to do with their arrangement?
roncesvalles 2y ago
Mostly blogspam. AI is death for people whose primary skillset was being proficient in modern western hemisphere English grammar, because now you can input a few messy sentences and have it output grammatically perfect, if not stylistically perfect, English.
- YetAnotherNick 2y ago
  Blogspam and clickbaity content is not niche. What's your point?
tonyedgecombe 2y ago
Or you write four times as much content to keep up with your competitors who are doing the same.

Pxtl 2y ago

If you could replace 3 of your 4 writers with gen AI then they weren't writing content they were writing filler. AIs write noise, not signal.

brigandish 2y ago
It’s irrelevant whether they were writing filler or not, they had jobs, and someone was paying them, which means their produce had some value, both to the publisher and the consumer. Otherwise, they’d simply be cut at some point, not replaced.
- lucianbr 2y ago
  By this reasoning mob enforcers produce value to the society too. They have jobs, get paid and so on. So no, it's not true. Just because someone was paid it does not mean they produced some value. The filler might have been a way to trick consumers into paying attention to ads. This is valuable for the company with the ad, but not the consumer.
  - brigandish 2y ago
    > By this reasoning mob enforcers produce value to the society too. I didn't write that they were producing value to society. Nice way to misrepresent an argument. Also, mob enforcers produce value to their employers, which is who pays them. Who pays the writers making filler? They're the ones who see the value in it, what does society have to do with their arrangement?

roncesvalles 2y ago

Mostly blogspam. AI is death for people whose primary skillset was being proficient in modern western hemisphere English grammar, because now you can input a few messy sentences and have it output grammatically perfect, if not stylistically perfect, English.

YetAnotherNick 2y ago
Blogspam and clickbaity content is not niche. What's your point?

tonyedgecombe 2y ago

Or you write four times as much content to keep up with your competitors who are doing the same.