This is good information, but a bit superficial - before AI, what percentage of online articles were generated from templates? What was written by content generation farms? Fiverrr and co pay-per-word writers?

I suspect that market has been more affected than anything.

I imagine something like 98% of articles also get less than 100 views. So the question is more about the articles you're reading rather than articles in general.

I'd say even half of my Youtube feed nowadays is.

1. Find some nicher but interesting topic (e.g. some historical event like Lepanto's battle)

2. Have AI generate the content of the 20 minutes video by collecting information about it online

3. Have AI generate the video

4. Have AI generate a realistic voice to comment on the video

5. Upload it without mentioning it's all AI generated

6. Have me get mad 4 minutes into the video because footage/paintings referring to that battle...do not exist at all...slowly realize it was all AI generated

> We build on our prior research by using three different AI detectors (Pangram, GPTZero, Copyleaks). We independently evaluate each to show that the false positive rates and average false negative rates are consistently below 2%. Each AI detector shows a similar trend.

This is all bullshit, none of those actually work, and the false-positives rates are sky-high. I'm not sure how any serious person have tried out any of those services and came away with the impression of "Well, better than nothing" because literally, it seems the opposite.