If a person reads AI generated text and does not notice, they by definition will not know about it.
There have been numerous cases of people accessing human created content as being AI.
There are instances where it seems relatively uncontroversial that it is AI generated, but without knowing both the amount of AI content people are exposed toand the amount that they register I don't think you can draw a conclusion of the overall state.
Always a pleasure reading Bryan's writing; it's like Bryan is sitting there with you and saying the words (hard to convey the feeling).
Glad those words proved prophetic!
[0] https://rustfoundation.org/media/how-the-rust-standard-libra...
I wish that were true, but I fear it may not be.
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/07/canadian-legislator-reads...
I guess there is a kind of participatory element to the discourse where, if you want an audience, there is an editing process. Whereas in other cases, we wrote these as progress notes on an unknown journey, breadcrumbs or upturned stones to mark a path to the horizon.
Maybe it's the difference between writing as a mode of discovery, retreading the mental arc of a solution, and writing something honed to leave a mark.
The chief grief appears to be phoning in the whole process.
this goes 10x for all the slide decks and google docs and wikislop everyone's trying to pass off as an accomplishment lately
Is obvious AI-assisted writing better or worse than an obvious PR quid pro quo and/or cross-promotion?
That's pretty normal, but the point is that a blog post which is 35% Pangram promotion may not actually be less annoying than the use of AI to help write blog posts.