Yes, AI text could be considered higher quality than traditional SEO, but at the same time, it's also very much not, because it always sounds like it might be authoritative, but you could be reading something hallucinated.
In the end, the text was still only ever made to get visitors to websites, not to provide accurate information.
I keep hearing this repeated over and over as if it’s a unique problem for AI. This is DEFINITELY true of human generated content too.
I disagree. I think it's both. Yes, we need good frameworks and incentivizes on a economic/political level. But also, saying that it's not a tech problem is the same as saying "guns don't kill people". The truth is, if there was no AI tech developed, we would not need to regulate it so that greed does not take over. Same with guns.
Same could be said for the Internet as we know it too. Literally replace AI with Internet above and it reads equally true. Some would argue (me included some days) we are worse off as a society ~30 years later. That’s also a legitimate case that can be made it was a huge benefit to society too. Will the same be said of AI in 2042?
I think you meant to say:
And nobody knows how they work.
Even though it's a large10% increase first then only a 0.999% increase.
From 90% to 99% is a 10x reduction in error rate, but 99% to 99.999% is a 1000x decrease in error rates.
While it’s certainly no where near the memory bandwidth, 80Gbps is on par with most high end, but still affordable, machine to machine connections. Then add on the fact you can have hundreds of gigabytes of shared ram on each machine.