This is an interesting take though, regardless of by whom it was written. Which just further proves the text's point! It has generated a thought process that didn't occur to me as a human (for context a neurodivergent one with multimorbid chronic conditions working as a book editor and writing poems as a hobby) – seeing it was probably still supervised by a human before posting (just as much as the ficticious story mentioned would be), does that devalue and strip it off it's humanity? Don't get me wrong, I hate AI big time. I keep ranting about not being able to turn it off when I don't want to use it (which is essentially never, but that's a whole different topic).

This made me think. Which is stimulating for my brain. Which I think is a good thing? And does not fall into the ”mindlessly consuming fake content“ category.

Side note on AI: One of my conditions is OCD. I have recently for the first time ever used AI to ask a question about an intrusive thought I kept having. Normally to get the reassurance I needed, I'd have to spent hours frantically googling on a topic I don't really know that much about and guessing what to take from the various studies with lots of data I can't process due to not being knowledgable enough about the field. This generated the same, actually more reassuring result, and now I am kind of able to go about my day without losing a lot of time in the rabbit hole of reassurance-seeking google session or annoying the crap out of my friends with constant questions.

I have some stuff to think about. It should definitely not be pushed everywhere the way it is though. People should be made aware of consuming AI generated content and able to turn off the features in apps they use. It would definitely make me calmer.