Interesting take and good counter-opinion. I'm of the slant that AI could be good used as a research tool (though not relied upon exclusively, because it is often wrong). But to use it fully, or even mostly for a full post? Nah, that's simply plagiarism (unless quoted as such). I'll often use wikipedia, or other search material to gather some relative facts for my posts, but that information is then written in my own paraphrasing and/or quoting the source. Why should AI be any different? Give it credit for the "work" or don't use.
I honestly don't feel as if this is a counter opinion.
I don't think AI generated content will be able to gain much reputation on this platform.
Perhaps this post was rushed and I should have been more detailed in my analysis.
I think AI as is, either hit or miss. It is good most of the time and when it works out it takes you to 80% sometimes 99%.
Work smarter, and use all the tools available.
The beauty of hive is the ability to know whicb accounts were active Pre ai era and then use those accounts amongst other tools to help define human accounts post ai era. Then make sure those humans are the ones elected into positions of running the important infra. We might remain human then. For all of its flaws, I like being human and I like to know that the content and value creators supported are written by genuine human accounts. Maybe more of their content becomes ai driven, but that’s ok, as long as I know the account is run by a real human who adds value to the community.