Experts: 90% of Online Content Will Be AI-Generated by 2026 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2025, 12:55:33 pm
content: Quote

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2025, 04:43:46 pm
content: My first reaction was:QuoteBut you know what? Scratch that! Why?Because there is no such claim in the cited report!Did you by any chance believe a totally trustworthy human journalist?The report is crafted to build the atmosphere of imminent danger, to rationalize the need to curb rights and increase money flow into the law enforcement industry. For this reason it is very hard to read. In fact I had to read it line by line; otherwise my brain was turning off instantly. But after going through all of it twice, I see no claim that would come even close to what the article says.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2025, 05:22:58 pm
content: Looks like it did state that at one time, but the current report does not -https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-events/publications/facing-reality-law-enforcement-and-challenge-of-deepfakes#downloads

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2025, 06:08:59 pm
content: Ok, I didn’t notice the article is 3 years old.So, based on thearchived 2024 version, the report did use 90% figure. Citing self-proclaimed, “Trailblazing AI Expert” brand in the form ofNina Shick. I assume it was too much even for the authors of Europol’s publication. Though the fact that anybody ever considered citing her should shine some light on how trustworthy the report is. And says much about journalists parroting her words.My initial reaction applies, then. I can believe Nina’s circles may expect over 90% of content will be generated this way. And I do agree with them! It’s simple: most of their tiny world is already a fake reality produced by ML for the past 10–20 years. It’s reasonable to think it’s not going to change in the next few!The really sad thing is that people like this are surrounding politicians and other decisionmakers, and are shaping their perception of reality.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2025, 06:21:05 pm
content: 2026 is tomorrow, 90%... makes no realistic sense.By the time we reach 90%, we'll be living in Idiocracy. Can't wait to see that!

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 07:13:58 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on August 02, 2025, 06:21:05 pmFunny you say that, some would argue Idiocracy was a documentary sent back in time.At this rate, AI will be writing our history books, and no one will even question if they match reality.1984 isn't coming - it’s just being quietly copy-edited by gpt.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 08:05:24 am
content: that 2026 and 90% is pure BS coming from so called "experts"training data for AI is coming from online content and AI can generate only based on that content... so 90% would mean that majority of training data for later models would be based on AI generated data already and would introduce issues like "model collapse". in other words there is a limit much lower than 90% when the output of new AI models trained on AI generated data would become unusable.

author: adx
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2025, 11:23:47 am
content: Clicked on the title and thought what massive regulatory change could cause it to drop all the way down to 90% by next year?Ah well.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2025, 03:30:04 pm
content: Drop? It would be funny, if it rises to a tenth of that level.Of course these “experts” will confirm it did reach 90%,because“most of their tiny world is already a fake reality produced by ML for the past 10–20 years.”Even authors of the report dropped references to the “specialists” discussed. If a publication that already raises eyebrows regarding accuracy and honesty, doesn’t want to have anything to do with the 90% claim, we should draw conclusions.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2025, 04:32:40 pm
content: I'm not sure if you appreciate the vast amounts of "content" out there already written by marketers, copywriters and others such purely to advertise things or lure suckers to visit websites filled with ads. It all will be automated as soon as that becomes economically advantageous.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2025, 05:52:16 pm
content: Creating original content is slow; autogenerating is fast, especially if we count copying as a form of autogeneration (I think that computer-guided copying is). It's well possible that 90% of online content was autogenerated already in 2007.Quite obviously, those who autogenerate or copy will move to better tools, and clearly LLMs are very suitable for that, so 90% by 2026 is well possible.If crap is easy to generate, we will see a lot of crap, simple as that.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2025, 07:15:08 am
content: Not surprising.Google created SEO so we needed countless pages of word salad bullshit to get better ranking. LLM are excellent at creating word salad bullshit.Image editing using """"""AI"""""" has been done for many years. Raw images themselves from phones are not nearly close the raw output of the camera sensors.It's easy to add up to 90%Then, so what?

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2025, 07:50:47 am
content: I was also thinking about articles like this one:https://medium.com/supplyframe-hardware/peeling-back-the-layers-how-to-decap-ics-and-spot-counterfeit-chips-404eab912f10In my opinion, this was written by someone who has never carried out the process himself. All images are taken from the Internet and he gets various details wrong: trying this with sandpaper is nonsense, the nitric acid reaction is not so immediate and splashy, it needs higher temperature than 90°C (actually gently boiling worked best IME), he doesn't say what to do with the sulfuric acid at all (and if you use it instead of nitric you will need a lot more than 90°C), and 70% acid will destroy aluminium bonding pads of the chip so you won't get a working sample from this.It reads like the author just ran a search, read a few howtos, maybe watched a YouToob video and wrote a few paragraphs about it. And if you click that guy's name, he has many other articles written about all sorts of things. Maybe he is an expert in all of them, or maybe he is not.So why would somebody bother writing such things? Easy - if enough people read them, you can get Medium to pay you.This is a perfect and obvious application for LLMs, and as you see, such "content for the sake of content" already existed before the LLM boom (this is from 2019). But it will get easier to make so there will be more of it.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2025, 02:50:00 pm
content: one of the reasons why anything medium is on my google block list. First recommended to me by a business manager type, filled with business manager tier crap (and now slop)

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2025, 12:27:22 pm
content: Oh, so THIS is how 90% of content will be “AI-generated” by 2026!BBC: YouTube secretly used AI to edit people's videos. The results could bend realitytl;dr: just yet another disinformation carefully crafted to bring your click and sell you to… nobody else but supposed evil-doer from the headline. The “AI-generated edit” is just image quality enhancement,(1)and a half of the article discussing “reality bending” is actually about completely unrelated cases. Let me quote the best fragment:“I think using the term 'machine learning' is an attempt to obscure the fact that they used AI”.(1)Whether Alphabet should or should not enhance image quality may be debatable, but certainly doesn’t fall into the narrative Germain builds.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2025, 04:53:45 pm
content: This article itself was probably hallucinated by an LLM. And you think the 90% is not realAnd somebody seriously named a media company after a pornography genre?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2025, 08:14:56 pm
content: Quote from: magic on August 25, 2025, 04:53:45 pmNo stranger than a certain "encyclopedia" having been co-founded by a previous pornographer ...

author: Picuino
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2025, 11:20:28 am
content: I started adding cybersecurity content created by ChatGPT to my website. While the result seems acceptable, it is far from applicable to the classroom. It is too generic and lacks practical examples. The biggest problem arose when I tried to register as the author of the website's content. I had to tick the box labelled 'some content generated by AI', but there was no option to specify which content.I am going to remove the ChatGPT content and will not generate it again. I don't want the hard work I put into my writing to be confused with the output of a machine on my website.Edit: The problem arises with translation. I currently translate English content using AI, and I don't have any other alternative to that at the moment.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2025, 10:29:29 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 20, 2025, 05:52:16 pmIndeed. Auto generated content has been available long before the dawn of ChatGPT. There are lots of websites full of gibberish and content copied from other websites which turn up in search engines. But these are easy to ignore. Skip the websites from unknown companies or with domain names that have some of the search words (or related words) in them.