> Expecting people to read unverified machine output is rude.

Quite. Its the attention economy, you've demanded people's attention, and then you shove crap that even you didn't spend time reading in their face.

Even if you're using it as an editor... you know that editors vary in quality, right? You wouldn't accept a random editor just because they're cheap or free. Prose has a lot in it, not just syntax, spelling and semantics, but style, tone, depth... and you'd want competent feedback on all of that. Ideally insightful feedback. Unless you yourself don't care about your craft.

But perhaps you don't care about your craft. And if that's the case... why should anyone else care or waste their time on it?

> You wouldn't accept a random editor just because they're cheap or free.

If the alternative is no editor then yeah i would. Most of what i write receives no checks by anyone other than me. A very small percentage of my output gets a second set of eyes. And it is usually a coworker or a friend (depending on the context of what is being written.) Their qualification is usually that they were available and amenable.

> Unless you yourself don't care about your craft.

This is a tad bit elitist. I care about my craft and would love if a competent, and insightfull editor would go over every piece of writing i put out for others to read. It would cost too much, and would be to hard to arrange. I just simply can’t afford it. On the other hand I can afford to send my writings through an LLM, and improve it here and there occasionaly. Not because i don’t care about my craft, but precisely because I do.

I’m reading a book that went through a competent editor that cares about spelling, semantics, style, tone and a type of depth. I can tell it’s a human editor from a certain craft school, and also that this editor has been at their job for at least a decade. I can tell the author of the book has also been at their job for a decade or longer, churning out book after book. And I can tell that because despite the impeccable grammar and prose, the book has no soul.

Wait, I phrased that wrong. The story is a mashup of commercial themes and the plot would be 3 out of 5, or maybe a 5 out of 5 for young people who haven’t yet had time to read thousands of books. But then the grammar is that of a sixty years-old person who would rather spend more time at the garden but who has excellent dominion of their craft and needs the few bucks to do groceries. Their exhaustive practice takes the whole work one notch down.

> ...why should anyone else care or waste their time on it?

Sometimes we (I) might follow ideas over authority/authorship. e.g.: I'll happily read ai generated stuff all day long on topics I'm super into.

Do I have to be the instigator? Can someone else prompt/filter/etc. for me? I think so. They'll do it differently and perhaps better than me.

> Its the attention economy, you've demanded people's attention, and then you shove crap that even you didn't spend time reading in their face.

That’s the rudeness. But this takes care of itself— we just adjust trust accordingly

> But this takes care of itself— we just adjust trust accordingly

This should be viewed as an absolute unacceptable outcome

I want society to become higher trust not even lower trust :(

first, tell the tide to stop coming in.