As platforms become flooded with AI-generated garbage, I wonder how people will be able to find meaningful content. Are there going to be a new set of AI tools for content curation? It just seems like this will only spark a new AI-driven arms race.
I think that individuals who care about meaningful, non-deceitful content, will have to create their own parallel net in which content can be sanity-checked and fact-checked.
Fast, free, or fact: pick any two. The current internet is fast and free, but is increasingly non-factual. An alternative emphasizing meaningful facts and observations will almost necessarily be slower.
We might even be able to use pressed bleached dead trees as a backup medium.
What do you consume in terms of content? Thinking back on my weekly viewing/reading habits from the past year, I've read William Gibson, watched a whole lot of BBC Earth nature docs, FX primetime television, and live sports from the NFL.
Those names, brands that have been established for decades, are how I curate. I feel reasonably certain BBC and FX will continue serving valuable content for the foreseeable future. Random YouTube channel I've never heard of or all-caps company name on Amazon not so much.
> I feel reasonably certain BBC will continue serving valuable content for the foreseeable future.
I hope so but there are forces in the UK (and I suppose outside it) who see the BBC as "unfair" competition and will continually attempt to defund/destroy it.
The bigger risk frankly is that people watch so little they no longer pay the license fee because it makes no financial sense to do so.
I haven't watched terrestrial tv in a decade or more, pretty sure there's a generation of UK kids who will never bother because youtube/twitch/netflix is better as far as they're concerned.
The goal should be to quality check not the AI vs human distinction.
It shouldn't matter if something was written by AI or human if it is high quality , fact-checked.
But I think AI (or the way we use it) still needs some improvement for that.
