> It's like a denial-of-service attack on the human mind.

I think this may be an example of deliberate hostile design, attempting to force users to adopt LLM based solutions to then summarise the vast output. Pushing back against AI contributions as such in this context makes sense, especially in software with an existing proven track record of great value delivery like Godot.

▲

someonebaggy 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There's no chance that anyone saw that far ahead in the future and planned it. It's emergent behaviour.

	▲	x3ro 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Who says anything about „this far in the future“? It’s enough for Anthropic et al to realize this one or two model versions ago, see it as a strategic advantage and push for that behavior.
	▲	jayd16 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Big tech: "Should we add any functionality at all to filter AI slop in any of our platforms?" "...nah" Its not 500 moves ahead.
	▲	Yizahi 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		While it certainly didn't enter a mind of any director making decisions (because they can't comprehend not defecting in a prisoner's dilemma, being sociopaths), it was plainly obvious to every person even remotely connected to IT in the past two decades. If one makes a better and faster spam generator and the same unchanged program also works in reverse, by sifting through spam and condensing it to a readable summary, that it will be immediately co-opted in a spam arms race by all sides of the war and become essentially mandatory.

▲

ahartmetz 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

AI also works better with concise, focused, high information density text. So AI-spam text hurts both humans and AIs, but humans more so than AIs. It is always a negative, except for the "competition" between (human with) AI and human without AI.