It's so we can in a fraction of those cases, develop real relationships to others behind the content! The whole point of sharing is to develop connections with real people. If all you want to do is consume independently of that, you are effectively a soulless machine.
If there's one thing that connects all media made in human history, it's that humans find humans interesting. No technology (like literally no technology ever) will change that.
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76900-1 [1] https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/06/this-photo-got-3rd-in-an-...
Source? My experience has been that people at most might be “ok” at picking up completely generic output, and outright terrible at identifying anything with a modicum of effort or chance placed into it.
Bold of you to assume any effort is placed into content when the entire point of using AI in the first place is to avoid this.
If a fish could write a novel, would you find what it wrote interesting, or would it seem like a fish wrote it? Humans absorb information relative to the human experience, and without living a human existence the information will feel fuzzy or uncanny. AI can approximate that but can't live it for real. Since it is a derivative of an information set, it can never truly express the full resolution of it's primary source.
What would be the point of paying for AI content if nobody did anything to produce it? Just take that shit!
