Then they'll drown in it until they grow tired of it.

Just as long as they drown in it.

>I can sell the book only if readers like it more than what they can get from, say, a chatbot.

I think people are biased pro human if they know there's an AI involved.

It's the same process as music and film. If you keep on producing mass slop, don't surprised when people can't tell the difference between it and AI.

Much of pop music nowadays is so heavily autotuned and processed now that it is moving more towards AI music, not vice versa.

> It's the same process as music and film. If you keep on producing mass slop, don't surprised when people can't tell the difference between it and AI.

That's not a surprise, given that AI is trained on mass slop. In other words, garbage in - garbage out.

Enshitification has been with us for a lot longer than AI and despite the promises to the contrary, AI ain't fixing it without people changing it first.

Mass slop for sure. But I think some of it is also the fact that everything is shoved into the blender and comes out as mush. I heard an AI version of a Beatles song, and although it sounded like one, it lacked the quirkiness. There are certain things the Beatles only ever do in one song, so that gets cancelled out.

A lot of current pop music is overproduced, inorganic, and written by the same people (Max Martin etc)

Oh, no! That would smash AI-haters narratives!

Paywalled.

That's the crux of the matter, I suppose. How do you paywall a local model that generates art and fiction on par with the commercial mass market?

You can RTFA by hitting F9 in Firefox to bring up Reader mode. I think that's worthwhile, as it's not a bad article. But it's one we've seen before and will see again: "My previous judgement that AI was incapable of X, Y, and Z was based on last year's model, and now I can no longer back up that opinion. This is <great | terrible>."