To be honest I doubt it. As far as I am concerned at least, it's a bit like the distinction between a shit sandwich and a sandwich that uses shit as a condiment.

In the terms of the fruit of the poisonous tree, the tree is not AI or what it touches, it is an author who chooses to use AI in the process of writing. The fruit of that tree is simply not one I care to eat.

▲

nfw2 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Thanks for explaining your opinion with profane metaphors and nothing else. How can you tell if an author used AI to research a topic or not. Why is this bad?

▲

canelonesdeverd 2 hours ago | parent [-]

There's no "good" or "bad" about it. Everyone is just wading through mountains of slop (man-made or ai made) and need a way to filter what's actually worth investing time and attention to. Effort, or percieved effort at least, is a good enough measure for most people. If 99% of ai generated "art" is low-effort garbage, why would people give the benefit of the doubt to the other 1%? What would they gain from it?

▲

nfw2 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Thanks for explaining the another person's opinion using your own, entirely-different, opinion. "Shit sandwich" usually implies "bad".

> Everyone is just wading through mountains of slop

I'm not. What am I doing wrong? Should I be on TikTok more? LinkedIn?

▲

canelonesdeverd an hour ago | parent [-]

> Thanks for explaining the another person's opinion using your own, entirely-different, opinion.

Not that different, just formulated in a tamer way.

> I'm not. What am I doing wrong? Should I be on TikTok more? LinkedIn?

You're not? You don't have to wade through mountains of grifters and "hot-takes" in your social media of choice? Or through a hundred garbage sites gaming SEO every time you need to search for something online? Or through the never ending catalogue of low effort drama in streaming sites?

If so I'm sure you realize yours is not the average experience on the internet.

	▲	nfw2 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> need a way to filter what's actually worth investing time and attention to nothing on social media is worth investing time and attention to. including hacker news, yet here i am so i guess my experience is not that different from the average experience, it's just not because of ai > social media of choice tiktok, x, linkedin, etc. have been garbage as long as they have existed. if ai slop made tiktok worse i would welcome that as a good thing for society. > search for something online just search on claude. the water is warm here on the dark side > low effort drama in streaming sites these are front and center because people like them. they have filters for acclaimed movies that aren't front and center because people don't want to watch There Will Be Blood on a random Tuesday after work. this seems like a reach

▲

ModernMech 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

99% of output from cameras is unmitigated low-effort garbage, yet people still hang 1% of photographs in art museums and on their walls.

	▲	canelonesdeverd an hour ago \| parent [-]
		There's an obsession here with replying with half baked analogies that I really don't see the point of. Is this an attempt at a thought-terminating-cliché? 1. People mostly hang their own photos. 2. People mostly go to museums because they expect a certain level of quality (i.e. they're offloading the curation to... curators) 3. Photography is it's own medium, generative ai is a "tool". Apple to oranges comparison. There's nothing about the analogy that works, what is your point here?