The intent to communicate particular ideas is actually important to the writing. If you have a lot of well put together words with relatively low intentionality behind it, what you have is something that is very effective at wasting your time. If I want to waste my time I'd rather be playing videogames.

> Did you derive less utility from the article than had it not been written at all?

At least in the economic sense of the word, utility is a measure of the subjective value that a person receives in exchange for something.

Indeed! And even subjectively, I find it difficult to believe that even if AI-written, the new information learned has negative marginal utility (or less marginal utility than had it been human-written). That is in fact the basis of the point I am making, though it is implied rather than stated.

For me it’s about human connection. I want to know the thoughts of others somewhere else to learn or share in their experiences.

I care. If the article was AI written, I'm massively less interested in writing it, and in fact I'll only do it if absolutely necessary, or if I'm getting paid.

That's just how it is for me. If you disagree: no problem! Some people are inclined to argue with people about their opinions, but I'm not one of them, at least not on this matter.

The messenger tells you a lot about the message with AI articles.

It being written by AI instead of a human is an indication the writer didn't care enough about the information being communicated to communicate it themselves and if they didn't care enough to put effort into writing it and making sure it is actually good why should I spend my time reading it?

It's also an early indication that the content won't be that good too so it's a convenient signal that reading it will likely be a waste of time. Just look at the article here. Lots of fluff and some completely vapid praise of some of the carry systems that put a significant load into the necks of the carrier. We know that's not good for you it's just convenient when you have low tech.

If you read the objections you’ll see they are about content (or lack of it) not the producer of the content.

Perhaps you are unable to tell the difference, but for others reading this sort of ersatz thought is like a boot stamping on a human face – for ever.

A slot machine that rolls sentences based on statistical weights isn’t a “messenger” and it’s output isn’t a “message.”

Now who's being a Veruca Salt? Everyone in this thread is clearly literally talking about the message.

While I agree that the topic is actually pretty interesting and any decent info > no info, in more general terms we pay with the most important commodity we have - our free time.

So just because something is free doesn't mean people automatically flock in masses for it and have uncritical relationship with it.

Yes, but criticism itself takes our free time, and there are better places to allocate that criticism/free time than this particular pile-on.

Be the change you want to see!

By whingeing about an allegedly Claude-written blog post on [checks notes] carryology.com???

Literal Gandhi!

> Assuming it is AI-written, who cares?

I care. I'm interested in what humans have to say, not the slop produced by a clanker.

> Did you derive less utility from the article than had it not been written at all?

Unironically yes. When I read an article and realize it's slop partway through, not only have I wasted my time but I experience the annoyance of having wasted my time. It would be better for me if such articles did not exist at all.