I don't care if web content is AI-generated

The discussion challenges the idea that AI-generated web content is uniquely objectionable. It acknowledges that language models often produce errors and bland material, but argues that human writers also spread inaccuracies, shallow claims, and deliberate misinformation. Models can summarize large amounts of information, though they lack the judgment to assess nuance; readers need stronger critical-thinking skills regardless of who or what wrote a text. On authenticity, the key distinction is whether a story is presented as fact or fiction: inventing a real-seeming person and asking readers to empathize can feel deceptive, while fictional writing is understood to be invented. AI has no lived experience, but it can combine human accounts, and its fiction is not inherently less authentic than human fiction. Disclosing AI use is considerate because readers may want to avoid it, including for concerns about job losses, but the writer sees disclosure as more important to others than to himself.

His personal standard is to trust only a small number of familiar writers and scrutinize everything else, treating human and AI content alike. He rejects the assumption that human authorship guarantees greater accuracy and allows that a consistently reliable AI could eventually earn trust. The broader problem, he argues, is that the internet has returned information to a communal, decentralized state after centuries in which institutions and print helped confer authority. People have not yet developed reliable ways to judge online information, so skepticism is necessary whether content is human- or machine-made.