>>10967656Yup, I ran into the character limit but you communicate my thoughts exactly. The people that churn out AI crap don’t even consume similar content themselves with genuine curiosity. They consume only to get ideas for their next prompt. It’s actually an insult to their intended audience, as if they will enjoy consuming their AI output and not just do it because the algorithm showed it to them.
>>10967673I have actually used AI for sexting before. It’s very good at going along with whatever pops in my head: But I got bored of it. The fact is, I didn’t care about the bot. My typing got lazy, there was no real connection, and I’d just ask it to give me filthy words and move on. It’s not authentic, it’s pure utility. Utility of wasting time.
Why would I pay anyone to give me a prompt’s output? It takes longer to discern if something is good than for me to generate thousands of variations. I have no reason to trust they curated it and didn’t just resell the first output without any edits.
I understand AI companies and GPU manufacturers making bank, but all AI creators do right now is simply training the AI only to get replaced. You can create a custom GPT that will ask you questions of your likes and desires and write you a novel. For $20 month you can make hundreds of books. Why pay for one?
AI influencers and such might be making some money (although I’m sure it’s exaggerated and they have a course on how you could do it too in their bio. Or they’re money laundering.) but people were making money drawing cartoon horses on Patreon before AI. A lot of things that seem normal or popular actually aren’t, once you detach from it and step away. Like parasocial interactions.
One thing AI cannot do is give my time back. It can save me from wasting time on meaningless tasks. Which means the output is meaningless. Not everything has to have meaning, sometimes utility is enough.
