The value dimension of text is not the volume of words but rather the signal-to-noise ratio, aka information density.
It does not matter whether a human or an AI produces a high-signal synthesis from a lower-signal body of work. The signal boost is value creation.
The underlying debate is whether AI is capable of signal-boosting arbitrary works more effectively than humans. I'd say presently, it is not. Even with the most powerful models, consistency and reliability across work types and lengths are far from business-grade.
If that were to change, the fact that an AI boosts the signal does not globally deflate the value of text. The value of text is determined by the signal, not the signal producer.
The main issue right now is that AI is not reliably boosting information signals, and therefore, most serious professionals probably still prefer to read original works.
It does not matter whether a human or an AI produces a high-signal synthesis from a lower-signal body of work. The signal boost is value creation.
The underlying debate is whether AI is capable of signal-boosting arbitrary works more effectively than humans. I'd say presently, it is not. Even with the most powerful models, consistency and reliability across work types and lengths are far from business-grade.
If that were to change, the fact that an AI boosts the signal does not globally deflate the value of text. The value of text is determined by the signal, not the signal producer.
The main issue right now is that AI is not reliably boosting information signals, and therefore, most serious professionals probably still prefer to read original works.