I think it’s probably even a step further and what they’re actually measuring is new content created in that time span, even though they’re not wording it that way. What I mean is AI content went from 5% of what was being created and put on the internet to 48% of all the content being created and put on the net. As bad as AI content is and as ubiquitous as it now is, considering how much there is on the internet and how long humans have been putting content on it, versus how recently “AI” (LLM’s etc.) actually are, it would be absurd to say that almost half of what exists on the internet right now was made by AI. So not only did it not decrease human content, it hasn’t doubled the content either.
I think it’s probably even a step further and what they’re actually measuring is new content created in that time span, even though they’re not wording it that way. What I mean is AI content went from 5% of what was being created and put on the internet to 48% of all the content being created and put on the net. As bad as AI content is and as ubiquitous as it now is, considering how much there is on the internet and how long humans have been putting content on it, versus how recently “AI” (LLM’s etc.) actually are, it would be absurd to say that almost half of what exists on the internet right now was made by AI. So not only did it not decrease human content, it hasn’t doubled the content either.
The graph indicates that it’s proportion of new articles. So half of what’s currently being put on the web is LLM-generated.
That’s what I said. I guess I didn’t word it well.
Or I could be terrible at reading
the one true leftist