Analyses like this are bizarre to me. There is an implicit assumption here that human generated content is often high quality and worth consuming or using.
My experience, as an adult who grew up with the internet, is that close to 100% of the content online is garbage not worth consuming. It's already incredibly difficult to find high quality human output.
This isn't even a new fact about the internet. If you pick a random book written in the last 100 years, the odds are very poor that it will be high quality and a good use of time. Even most textbooks, which are high-effort projects consuming years of human labor, are low quality and not worth reading.
And yet, despite nearly all content being garbage, I have spent my entire life with more high-quality content queued up to read than I could possibly get through. I'm able to do this because like many of you, I rely completely on curation, trust, and reputation to decide what to read and consume. For example, this site's front page is a filter that keeps most of the worst content away. I trust publications like Nature and communities like Wikipedia to sort and curate content worth consuming, whatever the original source.
I'm not at all worried about automated content generation. There's already too much garbage and too much gold for any one person to consume. Filtering and curating isn't a new problem, so I don't think anything big will change. If anything, advances in AI will make it much easier to build highly personalized content search and curation products, making the typical user's online experience better.
My experience, as an adult who grew up with the internet, is that close to 100% of the content online is garbage not worth consuming. It's already incredibly difficult to find high quality human output.
This isn't even a new fact about the internet. If you pick a random book written in the last 100 years, the odds are very poor that it will be high quality and a good use of time. Even most textbooks, which are high-effort projects consuming years of human labor, are low quality and not worth reading.
And yet, despite nearly all content being garbage, I have spent my entire life with more high-quality content queued up to read than I could possibly get through. I'm able to do this because like many of you, I rely completely on curation, trust, and reputation to decide what to read and consume. For example, this site's front page is a filter that keeps most of the worst content away. I trust publications like Nature and communities like Wikipedia to sort and curate content worth consuming, whatever the original source.
I'm not at all worried about automated content generation. There's already too much garbage and too much gold for any one person to consume. Filtering and curating isn't a new problem, so I don't think anything big will change. If anything, advances in AI will make it much easier to build highly personalized content search and curation products, making the typical user's online experience better.