3 ms·

> The fact that these same people can't tell whether it was authored by a human or an AI without a seperate disclosure is strong evidence that human authorship

> The fact that these same people can't tell whether it was authored by a human or an AI without a seperate disclosure is strong evidence that human authorship as such is not what they value at all. By that logic, the fact that (some) people can't tell between gold and fool's gold is strong evidence that gold was not what they value at all. Or: the fact that (some) people can't tell between food that is marketed to them as "healthy" and food that actually makes them healthy, is strong evidence that healthy food was not what they value at all. Neither follows. Both blame the victim of a lie.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
vidarh 2mo ago
> By that logic, the fact that (some) people can't tell between gold and fool's gold is strong evidence that gold was not what they value at all. Well, no? Most people don't value gold for intrinsic attributes of the metal, but for the market-assigned value of it or perceived status. I think GP overstated the point, but it's clear that a lot of people who object to AI authored content are objecting not because of the intrinsic attributes of the content but because of their emotions on the subject. That doesn't make it invalid. If someone really doesn't want to consume AI generated content, then so be it. But I also think the people making a big deal out of this seriously overestimate how deeply most people care. I suspect most people care only to the extent that the quality is lacking. I'd justify that view with your example: People keep eating unhealthy food despite knowing it's bad. And as another example, we keep buying things we can't be sure is ethically sourced. We're willing to look past a whole lot. The same way "Made in ..." labels were originally protectionist measures, I suspect disclosure requirements etc. will seriously backfire when it turns out most people stop caring the moment the quality is usually good enough.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

vidarh 2mo ago

> By that logic, the fact that (some) people can't tell between gold and fool's gold is strong evidence that gold was not what they value at all. Well, no? Most people don't value gold for intrinsic attributes of the metal, but for the market-assigned value of it or perceived status. I think GP overstated the point, but it's clear that a lot of people who object to AI authored content are objecting not because of the intrinsic attributes of the content but because of their emotions on the subject. That doesn't make it invalid. If someone really doesn't want to consume AI generated content, then so be it. But I also think the people making a big deal out of this seriously overestimate how deeply most people care. I suspect most people care only to the extent that the quality is lacking. I'd justify that view with your example: People keep eating unhealthy food despite knowing it's bad. And as another example, we keep buying things we can't be sure is ethically sourced. We're willing to look past a whole lot. The same way "Made in ..." labels were originally protectionist measures, I suspect disclosure requirements etc. will seriously backfire when it turns out most people stop caring the moment the quality is usually good enough.