3 ms·

What if I want good human content.

by krainboltgreene 1y ago

thunky 1y ago
How did you get it before AI?
- beej71 1y ago
  Google, usually.
pyman 1y ago
There are plenty of paid options out there, WIRED, Popular Mechanics, MIT Tech Review. Or any of these newsletters https://www.bigtechnology.com/recommendations https://www.bigtechnology.com/recommendations
- rpdillon 1y ago
  I think there is a decent likelihood that the publications and publishers in general will use AI to decrease the reliance on artists and writers. The most obvious outcome here is that we're going to be consuming AI content no matter what. It's just a question of who's going to be getting paid for it. This is not my idea. It's a concept that Rick Beato pointed out in his videos analyzing music production today and the direction it's going between the artists and the record labels. Everybody wants to be doing less work, and so the argument is really over who gets to control the technology and get paid.
  - pyman 1y ago
    If you want my honest opinion, GenAI is definitely going to change how we write and consume information: - Original, quality content will still exist, and it'll still need to be paid for, either monthly or per article. - Right now, articles are written by journalists. In the near future, a single article might be written by several people who aren't journalists at all, but still get paid. An AI will handle fact-checking and composition. The opinions, ideas, and knowledge will come from humans, AI will just verify and stitch it together.
- krainboltgreene 1y ago
  I said good content.
rpdillon 1y ago
I think it's really easy for people to say that the dive in quality is due to AI. I actually think it's the other way around. I'm in my late 40s and I've been watching quality decrease in our discourse and media for decades. And I think AI is just another opportunity for them to find a way to further reduce costs. But the incentive to reduce costs is there and it's a result of market demand for convenience and low cost above all else, and it's there regardless of whether or not AI is involved. And so I think you're asking probably the most salient question: if you're looking for high quality content, where do you go? For me, personally, I've found that people generally are not producing high-quality content for commercial gain. So I've just gotten a lot more community-focused in recent years.
- pyman 1y ago
  Good point.
- krainboltgreene 1y ago
  I was making a joke that The Economist is garbage content, but also genAI content is also garbage.
  - rpdillon 1y ago
    Yeah, I think I caught on to a little bit of that in your comment, which is why I started talking about the dynamic that just because you're paying a legacy publication doesn't mean you can avoid AI. It sort of a case where there's an unlimited number of ways to produce garbage content and really only one way to produce excellent content.

What if I want good human content.

thunky 1y ago

How did you get it before AI?

beej71 1y ago
Google, usually.

pyman 1y ago

There are plenty of paid options out there, WIRED, Popular Mechanics, MIT Tech Review. Or any of these newsletters https://www.bigtechnology.com/recommendations https://www.bigtechnology.com/recommendations

rpdillon 1y ago
I think there is a decent likelihood that the publications and publishers in general will use AI to decrease the reliance on artists and writers. The most obvious outcome here is that we're going to be consuming AI content no matter what. It's just a question of who's going to be getting paid for it. This is not my idea. It's a concept that Rick Beato pointed out in his videos analyzing music production today and the direction it's going between the artists and the record labels. Everybody wants to be doing less work, and so the argument is really over who gets to control the technology and get paid.
- pyman 1y ago
  If you want my honest opinion, GenAI is definitely going to change how we write and consume information: - Original, quality content will still exist, and it'll still need to be paid for, either monthly or per article. - Right now, articles are written by journalists. In the near future, a single article might be written by several people who aren't journalists at all, but still get paid. An AI will handle fact-checking and composition. The opinions, ideas, and knowledge will come from humans, AI will just verify and stitch it together.
krainboltgreene 1y ago
I said good content.

rpdillon 1y ago

I think it's really easy for people to say that the dive in quality is due to AI. I actually think it's the other way around. I'm in my late 40s and I've been watching quality decrease in our discourse and media for decades. And I think AI is just another opportunity for them to find a way to further reduce costs. But the incentive to reduce costs is there and it's a result of market demand for convenience and low cost above all else, and it's there regardless of whether or not AI is involved. And so I think you're asking probably the most salient question: if you're looking for high quality content, where do you go? For me, personally, I've found that people generally are not producing high-quality content for commercial gain. So I've just gotten a lot more community-focused in recent years.

pyman 1y ago
Good point.
krainboltgreene 1y ago
I was making a joke that The Economist is garbage content, but also genAI content is also garbage.
- rpdillon 1y ago
  Yeah, I think I caught on to a little bit of that in your comment, which is why I started talking about the dynamic that just because you're paying a legacy publication doesn't mean you can avoid AI. It sort of a case where there's an unlimited number of ways to produce garbage content and really only one way to produce excellent content.