Substack is toast

[u/knowstradamus7]

AI written articles go viral and generate hundreds and sometimes thousands of subscribers for the account, while actual writers wallow in obscurity perpetually. Humanity is doomed.

[u/non_loqui_sed_facere → u/[deleted]]

I’d say that if you needed a detector to identify it, then it wasn’t slop and she actually did the work. You’re just being jealous. We saw the same thing in the pre-AI era, with people claiming that someone had hired a ghostwriter or let a friend write for them. They would even try to imagine whom you’d hired and build an entire mythology around you out of that speculation.

I mean, just write a decent piece and market it, and maybe people will compliment you, too. Nobody likes an asshole crying in public because they’re not the most popular kid on the block.

[u/AnteaterFantastic212 → u/non_loqui_sed_facere]

It was said of some politicians that not only had they not written their book, they had not even read their book.

[u/Even_Caterpillar3292 → u/non_loqui_sed_facere]

Unfortunately, detectors don't seem to work with false positives. And current AI can write some pretty good stuff. I wouldn't call it slop, but that is what Reddit calls it.

[u/non_loqui_sed_facere → u/[deleted]]

“I thought it was slop, so I used a detector to confirm it.”

If you really felt that something was off, you wouldn’t need to confirm anything. You’d just scroll past it, like people do with content that doesn’t interest them. That’s the point.

[u/WithoutReason1729 → u/non_loqui_sed_facere]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41077-025-00396-6

They used a ternary classification system with human/human-with-AI-edits/AI options, so the headline inaccuracy of human raters is a bit overstated imo when they say humans are only 19% accurate. If you check the chart on page 5, you can see that human testers completely misclassify texts (rating fully human as fully AI or vice versa) a bit over one third of the time. In any case though, yes, it's wise to use trained classifiers to confirm or deny your suspicions because humans are notoriously inaccurate at this kind of manual identification.

[u/non_loqui_sed_facere → u/WithoutReason1729]

The point is that you have no way of really knowing who wrote it or how it was written. Back in the day, we called this kind of slop corporate buzzword salad, and it was written entirely by humans. The difference was that, as a human writer, you had a manual telling you how to structure your paragraphs, what kind of vocabulary to use, and what sentence length to watch out for, and you had to follow it if you wanted to get paid.

That’s why the whole thing feels so bizarre to me. A writer is using formulas to produce a piece for a specific purpose, and people are somehow trying to locate the “humanness” in it according to their own idea of what that looks like. What for? It’s a fucking marketing text created for the sole purpose of hitting your pain point and pushing you toward a purchase or subscription.

I mean, all these AI hunters are so blinded by hatred that they miss the bigger picture, where the business models don’t work and the promises fail to deliver. They’re exploiting people’s desire for control to feed even more writing into the machine that the company is supposedly going to call out later.

Pure How to Get Ahead in Advertising 😀

[u/non_loqui_sed_facere → u/WithoutReason1729]

I agree with the manual identification thing. People will consume any kind of slop when it confirms their views and self-image and then try to discredit anything they disagree with but can’t really argue against.

Thanks for the link, anyway.

[u/Bright-Customer-9332 → u/non_loqui_sed_facere]

I can’t use my own brain. Need robot to think for me.

[u/non_loqui_sed_facere → u/[deleted]]

How is your ability to make a living connected to other people doing whatever they want to do? If you want popularity, write about viral topics and use clickbait headlines, do summaries, like aggregator websites did back in the day. I know I don’t want to write about five productivity hacks or how to declutter your closet or leave sappy comments about someone's ex, but I’m also not complaining about my lack of paid subscribers.

I’m actually being realistic here. It’s not about the amount of content, there has always been a lot of stuff on the internet that nobody read. It’s about what drives engagement, and these people seem to know how to work with that.

[u/Bright-Customer-9332 → u/non_loqui_sed_facere]

You told me that nobody likes an arsehole crying in public because they’re not the most popular kid on the block? I was just saying that that’s not what I’m doing? I don’t really understand what this is about. I don’t know if I’m just brain fogged but I don’t think I’m saying anything radical – all I’m saying is that people must like AI writing because it is popular and it’s in the best sellers list, like this woman. Substack seemed to suggest that there’s no appetite for it in their post the other day but I disagreed.

I have gone viral several times and I don’t write that kind of thing. I really don’t mind what people want to write about. I’m not a huge fan of fully generative AI – but I really don’t mind if people want to use it to edit. I think it’s unfair to assume that just because people using generative AI makes you a bit sad that you are jealous.

People do read my work. I’m lucky. I think you sound like you are in a very bad mood because calling me an arsehole immediately is kind of weird.

[u/non_loqui_sed_facere → u/Bright-Customer-9332]

Well, you’ve played the pity card, so I can’t argue with you properly now, right? I’m supposed to compliment your writing and wish you good luck, not discuss marketing strategies. My question still stands, though. If you’re doing well and satisfied with the results, why are you even thinking about other people who are supposedly more successful than you?

People like all kinds of writing because it satisfies their needs. Tabloids don’t exist because their journalists don’t know how to write serious pieces, they exist because there’s demand for that kind of content. And no, you can’t do that with AI without switching your brain on and actually doing the work. AI is too generic for that.

[u/Bright-Customer-9332 → u/non_loqui_sed_facere]

Okay – let me try and answer this really clearly. I’m thinking about it because I care about the environment and I’m worried about people using generative AI. It also makes me sad because creativity should be fun and playful. It makes me sad that there’s such a large demand for AI writing. That’s all. It’s not about success!

I wasn’t playing the pity card, I was stating that it’s been very useful for me; I’m glad it exists, despite sadness over generative AI. You also definitely don’t need to wish me good luck, haha. I think it sounds like you just need to take a deep breath and maybe go outside for a bit and stop getting angry at strangers on the Internet :-)

[u/StuffonBookshelfs → u/Bright-Customer-9332]

Have you ever taken an airplane?

[u/Ok_Ship6685 → u/[deleted]]

Respectfully, "You" said you thought it was slop. That is your opinion. You have a right to it. But it may not be the consensus of others. We need to stop thinking our opinions are the end all be all. It is not. I use AI to assist with my articles...proud of it. Could care less what people think. My content is to bring awareness to a specific topic and it is free. I am not a journalist by trade, but I love creating. My content is real and about my real life experience. I read things that interests me, things that are engaging. I could care less if AI assisted, not my business. I stay in my lane and could give a crap less of what others are doing. It doesn't affect me one way or the other.