When AI generates content, what happens to the desire to read it?
John Carmichael
37 replies
So this morning I just watched a video on https://surgegraph.io which is a content creation tool for articles that also monitors the seo scores of the content it outputs.
In the video, the content is created and published in minutes. The ai operator never read the content he published...
Maybe the content is a accurate, maybe not... but the purpose of creating this content was to drive traffic... not to create great content to inform.
Is this type of content content you want to read?
Replies
Judy Mitchell@ju_mitchell88
why bother doing things if there's no point... Possible long-term consequences include...
Share
I don't know but I feel ai feeling generated content mostly fails to generate feelings from reading a content
@shubhangi_sharma5 same here, i wonder what happens when 10% of content on the internet is from generative ai.. will people still read this content? If the output is purely for SEO, what is the point in doing it to start with... the effect in the long run could just be... "the internet is full of GPT garbage"
@john_carmichael that's the reason I don't read the first two pages of the google search result specifically for research related content
@john_carmichael AI agents, specifically AGI, will eventually take over regardless. GPT-4 is already showing signs of AGI and is nearly indistinguishable from a human. What GPT-5 will bring is beyond human intellect, and SEO may not even exist by then.
@hashnimo I have not seen any evidence that GPT has shown a single sign of AGI. Do you have a reputable source?
I have not personally seen anything from GPT4 yet that I could use for anything without modification - I whipped together a little cli tool for API access: https://www.npmjs.com/package/op... but the results are not anything near the level a average human can create.
But yes... GPT5... who knows.
Agree with you though, if people are happy with AI giving them a few selections to choose from instead of infinite search results. And, people do not think about the fact that those results will be manipulated by whoever pays enough money... then yes, search as we know it today is dead.
@john_carmichael Found this on Google: https://futurism.com/gpt-4-spark...
If I just want information, I can use AI content, but I still need confirmation from other sources.
@peribesiraci but what happens when you ask an AI and then seek confirmation from another page... but you cannot tell if the "other page" was from an AI or a human?
I recently built a completely free AI chatbot powered by GPT-3. I'd really love to hear your feedback.
Playstore Link: https://play.google.com/store/ap...
Do reach out at chat.speakwiseai@gmail.com
If the content is entirely AI written, I would definitely not finding interesting or even rely on it.
AI should be a source of side help in copywriting and not just being used blankly anywhere. In my opinion, the human touch always be there in AI-generated content, either as an addition or modification.
@hosseinyazdi I totally agree with that. I feel like I've already been stumbling across entirely AI written content when searching google lately. There's just something off about it in a super generic, doesn't actually answer anything sort of way.
@john_carmichael Well, you are right, in this technology-driven world the content generated is just to get traction and views but not the emotional connection or satisfaction. We forget that these tools are there to improve our efficiency and not to completely do our work.
AI-written contents are notorious now, thanks to these startups. I've seen Generative AI content generate really high-quality results; and I've seen the bad ones, too. :-(
In my opinion, the fight isn't with AI tools, the hope is that writers will learn game, and start knowing how to use these tools to create and edit masterpieces. And not just expose us to 100% bot produce. That is never cool.
I love AI tools. I think it's here to stay. Let's learn to innovate better creation processes with these tools. That'd make all the difference.
@john_carmichael Not a seer but, it'd be no Einstein either to say that it's going to be pretty in our faces in a few years from now.
Let's learn to smile back at it and make friends while at it. :-)
Thanks for this question, John.
Very interesting topic. Check out Desofy app. It’s perhaps the evolution of Twitter!!
Sometimes it's really easy to spot generative content. It lacks emotion and randomness. Eventually, as AI awareness spreads, I think the vast majority of the population will be able to pick out the AI content, and the brain will mark it as spam. It's always up to the prompter create a more organic result. This stuff is a tool. We shouldn't be too lazy...
I feel like we're all developing a 6th sense for AI-generated content!!! If something I read smells of lazy ChatGPT copy/paste, I immediately lose trust in whatever account posted it.
AI can be helpful for generating text once the overall thesis of the content is there (you've done your research, have connected thoughts, created value), but even then, I feel like anybody that actually cares about their brand and message would still proofread and make sure everything checks out.
I feel like at some point over-using AI generated content will come back to bite if you're really trying to make an impression on a potential client or account.
It's difficult to rely on AI for content, the personal touch is lost. Can someone share any good experience with AI content?
AI will never generate something like human fellings
Perhaps we'll start seeing some sort of "human-included" filter or verification on sites.
Maybe through something that loosely resembles auto-moderators and scanning systems today to indicate and allow users to select for content that's either ai-created, ai-assisted, or likely had no ai used in the making of it.
I might want to read fully ai-generated content but, more than that, I'd like to know when I am.
Honestly, I might actually be more willing to read AI generated content
It all depends on the quality
It all depends on the value you want to get from the read. Let's assume GPT-X generates factually valid content that you could trust. If I want to get an overview of the topic or learn something specific - I wouldn't care. There will be AI magazines in whatever style I prefer - like Medium or MIT Review.
But, what I personally believe won't be replaced is human-generated content based on their experience with its emotional connotation.
Launching soon!
depends on the kind of content you're creating: if it's more analytical, logic-based and running low on emotional segments, AI can do it. But I'd like to see AI making me "feel" something on a deeper level like a human does.
I don't know, but I get the impression that artificially emotional content rarely succeeds in making the reader feel anything.
the desire to read it becomes a byte-sized curiosity, fueled by the quest for digital wisdom and a pinch of algorithmic amusement.
I just subscribed to SurgeGraph. It is really great BUT you do have to customise the writing.
People will read interesting articles that offer new perspectives as well as new data points. GPT4 can't provide either because it is, by definition, a backwards-looking platform.