The 'no AI used' disclaimer is a nice idea, however, how long is that going to last?
We could all have disclaimers or identifiable 'stickers' such as what we had in the olden days of IE6, to send people over to Firefox/Chrome/whatever.
However, next time the tech bros scrape the web, their AI beasts could learn the trick, to decorate their piffling output with similar disclaimers.
In the olden days, 'the camera never lied', however, nowadays, 'the camera always lies'. Even if it is not AI, you know it has been staged and Photoshopped to within an inch of its pixels.
So, what to do?
One way would be to have 'guilds'. Maybe tie it into academic institutions, where teaching staff are at the sharp end of AI use and exacting penalties for AI abuse. Imagine if there was a 'guild of human writers' and being in it meant better SEO with the consequence of abusing AI meaning getting kicked out of the guild.
Ultimately though, without any 'guild system', it all comes down to quality content.
We could all have disclaimers or identifiable 'stickers' such as what we had in the olden days of IE6, to send people over to Firefox/Chrome/whatever.
However, next time the tech bros scrape the web, their AI beasts could learn the trick, to decorate their piffling output with similar disclaimers.
In the olden days, 'the camera never lied', however, nowadays, 'the camera always lies'. Even if it is not AI, you know it has been staged and Photoshopped to within an inch of its pixels.
So, what to do?
One way would be to have 'guilds'. Maybe tie it into academic institutions, where teaching staff are at the sharp end of AI use and exacting penalties for AI abuse. Imagine if there was a 'guild of human writers' and being in it meant better SEO with the consequence of abusing AI meaning getting kicked out of the guild.
Ultimately though, without any 'guild system', it all comes down to quality content.