Fine in what way? What people?

I have not seen or heard of a single person who is excited about AI generated blog posts, or TikToks, or commercials, or images. In fact it’s the opposite, the internet coined the term AI slop, and my non-internet addicted friends hate the fact that chatGPT is killing the environment.

The only people I’ve ever seen champion AI are the few who are excited by the bleeding edge, and the many many peddlers

The most common people just seem to be the elderly who don't care / don't know any better. The same ones who told us never to believe anything from the internet. They seem to be hooked on weird AI jesus facebook posts, daily AI generated motivational content, talking to the chatbot in Whatsapp, etc.

There are probably more than 10^17 AI model executions occurring per day. I know in ye olde HN there are many Purists that are Too Good For AI, but the majority of the human race is consuming AI at a blinding rate, and if they really didn't like it, they would stop.

> and if they really didn't like it, they would stop.

I can’t really articulate why, but this doesn’t feel true to me. There are plenty of things humans do especially at scale that we don’t like, or we do that we don’t like others doing, and don’t stop

>The "Moloch problem" or "Moloch trap" refers to a scenario where individual, rational self-interest leads to a collective outcome that is disastrous for everyone. It describes competitive, zero-sum dynamics—often called a "race to the bottom"—where participants sacrifice long-term sustainability for short-term gains, resulting in a loss for all involved.

Hence why we have to keep feeding the orphan crushing machine.

Who wrote what you quoted?

Instead of getting judgy about Google responses, read the original story.

https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/Meditations-On-Moloch

I read the story before. Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Ya, that dang be danged, religious adherence to that rule is quite stupid, especially when you're talking to someone that has been here years

You disagreed with a guideline did not make it religious. And account age was not relevant.

There are probably as many spam emails per day. You think "majority of the human race" likes them?

And how much of that consumption is voluntary or willful? I don't want to get AI slop in my search results or in my forum discussions, it muddys the water with shallow at best information, often in excessively verbose ways that helps hide its more subtle falsehoods that it picked up.

Your comment doesn't make sense because the fact that "dead internet" has been coined since then (along with the popularization of "slop" and "hallucination") means there is a line and we have crossed it. Denial doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

It's too bad we weren't more skeptical about the ways emerging technologies would eventually be used against us. Some warned about it but many (including me) ignored them. Perhaps we could be forgiven for that naivete, but there's no excuse to be ignorant of what's going on now.

There's a huge difference between fake content and fake authors.