naught101

Interesting policy… I suspect it falls apart in the details though. Like, there are plenty of creative elements in responding to questions (and any of the other categories). That mean there will be lots of weird edge cases that are hard to adjudicate. And those GenAI components of “non-creative” categories will have ripple effects into the broader project and community (as they are everywhere, so maybe not that important for a.policy to grapple with, IDK).

I figured the title meant they were gonna start blocking the real people

I kinda love this because it shows both how uninventive and useless meta is, but it also clarifies just how much the earlier situations were also just publicity stunts.

we read comics to be entertained

Speak for yourself. Sometimes I do, but art style is often a critical value for me. I like Revoy’s art, and have done for over 15 years. I agree that his writing is not always amazing, but I still enjoy his work as a whole.

If you go just by content

a) This is a weird definition of “content” - I think most people would include visual art, and b) that’s a big universalising “if” … I don’t think most people only value a comic for it’s words.

It’s crazy to imagine the only value in an art work is how well it conveys a joke

I hadn’t noticed it, but the whole style is petty similar to a lot of his recent work, so I guess it’s not a deliberate point.

Damn, that’s a super crass way of approaching the world.

Unfortunately

Look, as a southern hemispherian, given everything that’s going on right now in the northern hemisphere, I’d be pretty fine with going missing TBH.

What does this mean? Is art not content?

Must be frustrating. I’ve been following him since he was making tutorials using alchemy and mypaint around 2010, so I’ve seen his style coalesce. I can understand the commenters’ suspicion, it just kinda sucks that some of the most common AI styles landed so close to his…

They have uses in certain circumstances. They also have lots of negative aspects (that are broader and more systematic, as far as I can see). I think in a net-benefit sense they are not, in fact, helpful (to an organisation, or to a society).

The question isn’t where the point of no return is - we’ve been beyond those the whole time. The question is how bad we want to let it get. Ever fraction of a degree extra warming means worse impacts.

Agree that less than +2°C is unlikely (though not completely impossible). But still, better that than +2.5°C, etc.

link?

he’s been skeptical of at least the finance side of it since sept 2025: …medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-09-27-econ…

It’s changing a lot of things, but many of them in only relatively minor ways. It’s not affecting e.g. food supply systems in a significant way - it might be screwing up the management structures of companies involved, but that will be repairable fairly quickly…

A more recent (and maybe closer) analogy is the advent of ebook readers and the heralding of the Death Of The Book. I suspect we’ll be in a similar place in a few years - books stores are doing just fine, perhaps even better than pre-ebook.

Considering you immediately down voted my comment, I think it’s fair to ask: is that a genuinely curious question?

edit: fuck it, I’ve been thinking about this anyway, may as well write it down. A few points:

Firstly, a few decades ago a similar claim about junk food would have been very hard to find evidence for, because research on it’s detrimental effects didn’t gain much momentum until after it was obvious there was a problem. AI will certainly have a similar lag, so it’s unlikely that we’ll have hard evidence of it’s effects (especially in the wild) for years or decades.

That said, I have a few hypotheses for impacts on readers/reading:

• “quality” in this study is probably fairly highly correlated to “average” - text that reads simply and clearly, because it tries to be as close to cultural norms as possible is much easier to read. That removes barriers to reading, which to some degree makes it more fun to read. But it also makes it less challenging to read. Counterpose this with creative literature that often has a really strong author’s voice that can be a bit challenging initially, but beautiful it you persevere with it. I’m thinking like Ursula Le Guin, or Haruki Murakami.
  • in the longer term, reading a lot of AI writing is likely to lead to a strengthening of the bias towards simple, generic language. In turn this could lead a reduced demand for really creative writing. By analogy, we’ve already seen something similar happen with hollywood films over the last couple of decades - more focus on generic (e.g. Marvel) and rehashed stories.
  • AI use is already leading to more generic, less explorative science - see Hao, Q., Xu, F., Li, Y., & Evans, J. (2026). Artificial intelligence tools expand scientists’ impact but contract science’s focus. Nature, 1–7. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09922-y
• Because LLM-produced writing inherently produces less diverse content (because it is an averager, with noise, see the Hao reference above), then it’s less likely to produce ideas that challenge the mind, and require the reader to engage critically.
  • LLMs usage is already associated with reduced critical thinking capacity: Gerlich, M. (2025). AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking. Societies, 15(1), Article 1. doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006
• LLM’s well-known tendency towards “hallucinations” is all fun and games when it’s overt, but more insidiously, more subtle hallucinations happen constantly too, and go undetected. This can end up producing ideas/memes that are subltly wrong and potentially damaging, but get accepted by the reader because the sound pretty close to the truth (especially when you’re lulled into a false sense of security by a voice that sounds VERY MUCH like it knows what it’s talking about).
• Guardrails are garabage and easily bypassable and have already lead to deaths. While reading doesn’t have the rabbithole effect of using an LLM as a chatbot, it’s still capable of producing horrendous ideas and framing them as positive.
• I suspect that reading less diverse content also results in a degraded capacity for imagination in general, so it could lead to less good art in the world.
  • Imagination is also necessary for solving major socio-environmental issues, and even for things like planning to prevent terrorism, so this could have broader ramifications in the long run. See Weick, K. E. (2005). Organizing and Failures of Imagination. International Public Management Journal, 8(3), 425–438. doi.org/10.1080/10967490500439883

I feel like a had more points, but that’ll do for now.

Plus obviously all the other GenAI complains - environmental destruction, copyright theft, EEE power grabs, associations with fascism in general…

That’s like saying people prefer lots of highly processed food with heaps of sugar and no nutrients. It’s definitely true in some ways, but not a good thing to organise your life or society around

Windows 98 was clearly the peak

I’ve been half wondering if they are already vibe coding everything, given the number of bugs that I’ve noticed in outlook online over the last few months