No AI is used to write posts. Full stop.
I don't generate entire paragraphs with AI, I don't rewrite shorthand with AI, I don't use sentence complete, and I don't use AI to generate ideas.
If any AI whatsoever is involved in the creation of an article, it will be disclosed at the top of the post. One example of a use that would be acceptable is having a back and forth with a contrarian AI to explore the problem space and steelman a point of view.
In a world where AI is ubiquitous and cheap, the value of AI writing approaches zero. If someone asks an AI "what do you think about X", and then reposts the output, what is the value of that? Anyone else has access to the same information.
Currently people mostly get mad at people simply copy pasting AI with its distinctive vernacular. But someone paraphrasing an AI paragraph in their own words has the same information signal. But I could simply get the same information from an AI itself.
The only value to a reader is if: (1) the writer fact checks the AI output (contributing to the information stream by adding their badge of verification), (2) the writer condenses the AI output to something more concise by picking the most important pieces, (3) having the idea to ask the right prompt in the first place.
These are the only valuable points - and all are the human element. I figure that (1) and (2) will become increasingly less valuable as the AI gets better and people figure out how to refine the work streams. (3) is the generalizeable portion of intelligence and I think the last to go.
If you are building a moat around your value to the world, eventually being a "meat proxy" for AI will get discovered by even dinosaur corporations.
I think there will always be a space for human writing and thinking. Either due to (1) actual value or (2) sentimental value.
Similar to how people value craft and will buy rough-hewn handmade objects at a market, people will value human writing. An artisinal vase is "worse" than a mass produced one, but it feels better to some consumers. Look at how people recoil to writing with claudisms today.
I do think that these "tells" are just word arrangements and it's not tough to imagine that someone could run the same text through a second AI prompt to edit it out.
For actual utilitarian value, the long-term picture is still unclear. It is possible the AI will get really good at writing. It is also possible AI writing will stay too generic and it will never be able to come up with a great marketing hook or song refrain.
Art is distinctive and you can argue it has a uniquely human element to it. But business writing which still requires some taste, seems like it could be hacked. When I was a young corporate strategy professional, I had the rules of business writing beaten into me.
I don't see why AI couldn't learn those same 20 rules for how to make a "board ready" deck. It may take more scaffolding or unique training sets but I don't see why it couldn't be done.
Sincerely yours, Dolomiti