Slop until we drop? Not for discerning minds

There's more AI-made content than there is human-made. Is this the death of the web, or a tipping point where the AI-internet eats itself and lets a new better web emerge?

by Rob Corbidge

Published: 15:16, 13 November 2025

Years back when I worked in a commercial analogue data outlet - a bookshop - it became apparent to me that fully three-quarters of the books on sale could simply be other books. That is not to denigrate the efforts of the authors and editors involved, but simply to state that 75% of the stock was good enough to be stocked, and not much more.

A simple test of quality in this instance would be how long a book stayed on the shelves and in production. If a book, outside of specialist educational textbooks etc, could maintain a shelf slot for five years, it was quite something. If it could maintain 10, then a certain test of cultural curation had been passed. To take this process of cultural curation to the extreme, you will still likely find a copy of Plato's The Republic sitting somewhere in any large bookshop worthy of the name. It was written around 375 BC. Other classics are still older, and still read, and still stocked.

In our haphazard and very human way, we're pretty good at this process of cultural curation. Of course some wonderful things get lost, and other wonderful things sometimes pass unnoticed in their own era, to be later "discovered", yet by and large there is a property of discernment at play and it has yielded decent results, as we're still here and still reading.

It was a post by the wonderful Barry Adams that led to my line of thinking. He was referencing a prediction that GenAI would alter the content quality bell curve, a prediction made only eight short months ago. Simply put, the sheer volume of content that GenAI systems enable to be produced is swamping human-produced content, meaning the distribution of low quality content is now of such great volume that it has changed the shape of the information landscape. 

All available data appears to confirm this prediction, and indeed, the crossover to more than 50 per cent AI content versus human may have occurred as far back as November 2024.

It's possible to view this as a form of the process of malign industrialisation. We can manufacture intricate things in the millions that only a few hundred years ago would have taken significant time and skilled labour, if they could be done at all. This is what is being offered to us in AI content. It takes less time and effort to produce a thousand words on something than it ever did, and goodness knows producing coherent content is labour intensive work for humans, so the enticement to use Generative AI is clearly there.

The fundamental issue is that, in the context of the written word, GenAI feeds but it does not contribute. That is to say that anything produced by GenAI is simply the sum of its parts, to which it adds nothing but a transformative process of aggregation and weighting. Many would say that's quite a big nothing, but I would disagree.

Creativity is the foundation of contribution. By way of example, consider one William Tyndale, the devout 16th century Christian, who translated the Bible into English directly from the Greek and Hebrew texts, an incredibly dangerous and controversial thing to do. His efforts, combined with the new availability of the printing press, certainly changed the course of English history, and Tyndale ended up strangled to death in Flanders for his troubles.

Whatever your religious persuasion, or the absence of, if you use spoken English you will use some of the words and phrases Tyndale invented. Such invention was necessary for Tyndale, as he had to find relatable concepts in English to match those of the ancient texts he was working from. Hence he gave us, among others "scapegoat" and "Passover". He even came up with "Jehovah". "The salt of the earth" is his, as is "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak", and "Am I my brother’s keeper?". 

There are hundreds of such examples, and it's safe to say that it was a combination of Tyndale and Shakespeare that shaped much what we would consider modern English.

The important thing to consider here is that Tyndale made words up. Words that are now so familiar and ingrained as they pass without notice or knowledge of origin. By comparison, GenAI offers only creative atrophy by way of contribution, as it can only take from what is, and not make what might be.

This might be a long view, yet, for publishers, it is this quality of human discernment that will be our saviour. As we all are aware, GenAI content may be all-present, but it's not very good. Nor, despite promises made by the technologically zealous, does it show much sign of improving. 

The creativity of GenAI is in the engineers who build the systems, not so much in the end result.