Yeah -- if it wasn't worth your time to write the post, why do I think it should be worth my time to read it?

Reading the output of a LLM prompt someone else wrote isn't useful as I can run the prompt myself. Having the prompt is actually more useful because I can run it in any LLM I want.

Writing is thinking. If you don't spend time writing, then you didn't spend time thinking. LLMs don't think. Consequently, if you outsourced your writing to an LLM the resulting artifact was born of a thoughtless process. Instead of engaging your readers in your thought process you're tricking them with a puzzle. Readers will try to understand what you're thinking about (at least the non-passive ones will). This activity is a dead end for LLM output.

Or rather because they are always just of poor quality

> It’s the same reason why everyone doesn’t wanna read LLM generated blog posts. The agreement used to be generally that you would spend more time writing than I would have to spend reading and when the agreement changes the quality changes as well.

That's not it at all.

The problem with AI slop is that in general it's not worth reading, because to start off even the author deemed the topic wasn't even worth writing to begin with.

Worst, most AI slop blog spam was obviously not even reviewed by the bloggers who prompted them into existence. This means is also content that even the bloggers themselves felt wasn't worth reading at all.

But somehow they expect us to invest our time reading AI slop?

Cope for being a carbon chauvinist. The medium is not the message (and the folks who try to convince you that it is are loony/charlatans/frauds like Marshall McLuhan). The message is the message.

You can't unilaterally say all AI blogs are low quality. That's bullshit.

> would spend more time writing than I would have to spend reading

To your point however, the reason people don't like AI generated blogs is because there is a explicit recognition that the author of the blog lacked effort. There is a visceral response for the reader about the social contract "if you didn't spend as much time as I did why should I care about what's written here", it's however NOT that the quality is inherently poor (but perhaps one my insinuate that notion).