AI-generated content seems similar. If a comment is good, who cares whether it was written by Alice, Bob, or an AI? ChatGPT has already proven it can write better answers to some queries than most humans do; I'd rather read the better-quality answer, no matter who wrote it. I'm on HN for the comments, not the people.
Take the following statement: "The CEO of ACME Co is abusive and you should avoid him at all costs. Do not work there."
If it's an anonymous poster on Quora, that's a (potentially) valuable response and a good reason for that person to stay anonymous. But if it's AI, it can't possibly reflect any actual first-hand experience. At best it's a regurgitation of something out there already and at worst is a AI hallucination based on a mishmash of fact and fiction.
(Same for for AI, btw. Some places will embrace it and some places will ban it, and both will have their valid reasons.)
What did you use to do this? Would love to never have Quora spam ever again.
Is it similar to how when we recite answers from Wikipedia without seeming to know why it's seen as less valuable?
I guess you also think the same about AI generated art?
doesn't mean that the answer is comprehensible or correctly
personally I develop a fatigue reading chatgpt answers, there's some fluff I have problems parsing, I don't know how to describe it.
(It says "From the ChatGPT-generated stuff I've seen just in the last week, I think we're already there. Most humans these days are incredibly stupid.")
I have read low quality internet comments saying "people are dumb" over and over and over, year in, year out. I argue that wherever they are, they have no inherent positive value. And negative contribution to the internet, the world, the thread they are posted in.
I think you'd find that, in a lot of contexts, a lot of humans care more about reading quality content than concerning themselves with who wrote that content, which is effecively "siding with ChatGPT" here, I guess.