Yes. I missed that specific bit, but, the more I read on, the less it felt like a nice in-flight magazine-tier diversion and the more it felt like I was reading the result of asking Claude to write an essay about the bearing of loads.
(Which makes me personally a lot less interested in reading it.)
Here's a certified human written post from the one and only Yvon Chouinard about tumplines. Patagonia actually used to sell a tumpline compatible with some of their packs briefly in the 2010s!
Yeah the writing tastes like processed food. There’s no substance just “here’s some stuff people do” but nothing about why it works or where you could learn more.
I suppose I read enough books that I've seen this from human writers all the time for decades. It's even an English construction that I was specifically taught Japanese and Spanish equivalents in my foreign language classes decades ago, and I use the German equivalent with my family all the time.
Assuming it is AI-written, who cares? Would the article have been written if AI hadn't authored it? Did you derive less utility from the article than had it not been written at all?
Bunch of Veruca Salts here. I want ALL the entertainment/information, I want it NOW, I'll pirate it if I have to, and GOD FORBID IT USE AI.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But I don't know if I am imagining it; I'm starting to feel Claude's (AI) writing everywhere. Like this sentence for example:
> The genius of the gaucho’s system isn’t storage. It’s integration.
The x isn't y. Its z.