Can AI do things better and more easily than a person? If the answer is 'yes' then it doesn't matter how much effort was put into the output.
This perfectly sums up your article and it's something a lot of people are finding difficult to understand: if an AI generates a good article, why should we ignore it? If someone put a lot of effort in his/her writing, but the result is poor and of little interest, why should we reward him/her? Having more spare time, I could write all day long about whatever I want... my dinner, my health, my dogs, my shoes... would these posts have value only because I spent hours writing them? Would they help Hive get noticed and become mainstream? The short answer is "no". And, on the other hand, if an AI can write a well-written post about an interesting topic, using the right language, adapting its lenght to the target audience and making it x100 better of posts about my (not so interesting) shoes, wouldn't it be better for everyone?
A big mistale people are doing about this topic is, imho, thinking that using an AI to write a good post is easy... and this is completely wrong, at least if for good we mean something that doesn't look like it was taken from a dictionary saying over and over the same thing using different words.
Have people ever tried using Dall-E or Midjourney (or other text-to-image AIs)? Sure, everyone can get a decent result, but getting an awesome result, genereting exactly what you had in mind is hard, incredibily hard.
The same applies to text-to-text AIs: making them writing something that is good and have its own personality, making it looks more "human", it's not easy. You have to know how to talk to the AI, you have to teach them, you have to learn a lot before being able to master them.
The problems are both people which would love to use AI to abuse the sistem (writing tons of useless articles without having any ability in using an AI) and people unable to understand something that is new and different: people always have fear of what is different, and this isn't something good.
Sorry for the long comment and for my poor english.
Shouldn't we reward the AI for creating such great article then, and not the user?
Most common's today AIs (like GPT) aren't able to generate anything without a human input, so their product is still the effort of a human, which should be rewarded for his/her ability to give the right inputs to the AI.
I think the biggest misunderstandment is that making an AI write something good is easy: AI can easily generate a "decent" article, but making them realize something really good is a completely different matter.
Maybe first we should learn to distinguish "good" content, from only "decent" content; then we should start rewarding people producing something above average, instead of asking ourselves if the author has written it with the help of a pen, or a pc, or an AI.
AIs are nothing more than an instrument and they should be treated accordingly.
I should point out that people asking an AI to write something about a subject, without telling the AI anything more, aren't writing something good, but only gathering some data. This is not good content. This could also be classified as plagiarism.
On the other hand, people using an AI to better express their opinion and to boost their productivity, hence producing better content, in my eyes, are 100% worth all the rewards they can get.
Everything is IHMO.
I am sorry, but I do not consider writing a line of text to in get 1000 word essay an effort. Even if it is a few lines of text to get more complex answer. It is still a prompt and the text is still written by an AI, that then is published in a post. I could do that every day, but I would is still not be the author of the essay, it is not my thoughts that everyone will read and maybe reward.
So, do we reward the user that asked AI the right question and copied the result, or the bot that wrote 1000 words as an answer?
Exactly. Rewarding people, not algorithm that writes based on what they can find online.
I think you are trying to show that some AI posts are more interesting than others written by a human. I agree that some might be more informative and put together in a better way. But it is still not authors experience, knowledge and thoughts. And on Hive its the authors that get the rewards.
If they use AI to help them find information faster, or give some clues about topic, so that they can write (on their own) text that makes sense - sure, use it. It is there to be used. But if they use it to write a few prompts, then copy what the AI wrote for them and publish it without any mention that it was written by a bot, than it is just plain cheating the readers and curators. No matter how interesting the article is.
Now let's imagine that everyone on Hive agrees that AI pots are cool and everyone is welcome to post anything AI creates for them. Can you imagine how the feed will look like in few months, or a year? And how hard it will be to find a real, human written post in all the similarly looking articles.
How it will look like to someone from the outside that opens Hive for the first time and what will they think this place is.
Everything ai writes is hollow imitation
No soul inside, not even a thought
AI does not understand anything, not even concepts
If you only want to read that, that's ur thing then
But if everyone Acts like that, human progress just stops
Goodbye knowledge, philosophy, gnosis
Hello repetition of status quo