Do you consider AI-generated content to be less valuable?
We use AI to improve something in the process (mostly to speed up the process).
But whenever I see and suspect that something is generated by LLMs, I feel that the person on the other side has slopped it a bit (and subconsciously I perceive it as "something less").
I have to say that some outputs that look really high quality and I have trouble distinguishing them from "handwork" are perceived as completely normal (at least for me). As equal human work.
How do you view things generated by artificial intelligence?
Maybe it's true that who is behind the output and prompting also influences the result (professional vs. amateur).
But it clashes a bit with the fact that: if we do things with AI, why do we demand less money for the output? (We perceive it as cheap.)
Replies
Honestly, I think it is less about AI vs Human and more about whether it feels generic. Good prompting and editing can produce something genuinely good, lazy prompting produces the "slop" feeling regardless of who's behind it. The pricing thing is interesting though, I think we undervalue the judgment and editing part, not the output itself.
@samran_elahi I completely couldn't agree more. A lot of people do undervalue the work of editing and iteration which is exactly what distinguishes great output from sloppy output.
Softorino 💻📲
Same feeling!)
Recently I was trying to fix something on my Mac. Opened 4 articles. All of them talked for 800 words and said nothing. I closed every tab, kind of angry haha. None of them were badly written. They just didn't help at all. All generic water. Even the "how-to" video content is nowadays mostly AI-generated. Only Reddit, with real humans there, helped me.
That's the real thing for me. Not AI vs human, but whether anyone bothered to decide what to say, reread it properly to make sure it brings value, and add a touch of "humaneness".
funny thing is polish is what tips me off now, not the AI part. rough edges read as a person actually steered it instead of shipping the first draft
speaking as someone who suffered a traumatic brain injury and has problem with memory and communication.. AI has been a game changer. I don't Give it prompts first.... i share exactly what Im trying to communicate and then i prompt it to write and form content in my voice with my frame of reference. it helps me be to be quicker and more efficient without sounding like its coming from a AI robot. Also through multiple uses my portal knows me really well and does a great job of communicating in my tone and style.
Another interesting topic Nika, I think AI generated products are great as long as the user put's in enough efforts to make it professional. Unfortunately, many AI users want the AI to do almost everything automatically. AI as I said earlier is a tool, what a user produces from using the tool is up to the user's quality of work. I have seen both sides of the spectrum, very high quality AI work and very sloppy AI generated work. It all depends on the user/creator.
vibecoder.date
Yes I consider it less valuable.
Especially code, because it was made with the mindset of taking on tech or cognitive debt traded for speed.
It's not disposable per se but it is not sacred.
Frankly I only let AI touch code/software in general. And making MARP templates, I'll hand edit the wording but having the boilerplate is nice, although I could probably find or make a template to use after that. and make the themes by hand too.
@busmark_w_nika I've landed somewhere specific after testing a lot of AI output closely: the "less valuable" instinct isn't really about AI versus human, it's a proxy for "was this actually checked." A lot of AI output looks polished and reads fine on a skim, but if you compare it word-for-word against a source, meaning drifts more often than people expect a hypothetical becomes a certainty, a number gets reversed, an argument's actual point quietly shifts.
Polish and accuracy aren't the same thing, and AI is much better at the first than the second.
So the discount people apply to "AI-generated" is often really a discount for "unverified" which is a reasonable thing to discount, human or AI. The output I've seen that holds up is the stuff where someone clearly read it against the source before publishing, not just generated and shipped. That's genuinely more work, not less, which might be part of your pricing question too verified AI output isn't actually the cheap, fast thing people assume it is if it's done properly.
I don't consider it less valuable, because editor's work is still work and it actually requires more experience in traditional copywriting. I treat AI generated content as a draft, not as the final result.
What I find absurd lately: some people intentionally make grammar mistakes, write without capital letters etc. in order to look less AI, but the content stays generic.
We can charge less because the cost is 20-100€ per month for AI, not a salary. A copywriter today uses the same tools anyway, so what you're actually paying for is the editing and judgement, not the raw generation.