Last things i’ll say on Chris’ post:

1. I love shots being fired at LinkedIn

2. I have a right to know who’s choosing to run pangram on my writing. If substack is giving folks the right to scan, I have a right to know who scanned and the AI-generated “results”.

3. Community surveillance is generally bad news (history has so many examples where this went left) AND will be interesting to see if AI writing that is flagged by more AI (LOLZ) performs more poorly than “handwritten content” (lolz again) if it’s posted by a pretty and/or influential person. What does it mean if your faves use AI for their writing? I have a feeling people will care less and less?

4. Where is substack going to draw the line? Since it won’t remove accused rapists and Nazis but instead is giving us prediction markets and community copy surveillance -- will people be banned, or better yet, taken to substack court, where they’ll have to argue on behalf of their work for reinstatement? Will we be able to watch fellow writers on trial in the digital substack town square so we can hurl our insults via chat? Either shake something or shut up about it. What good is knowing someone is using AI for writing if it doesn’t mean anything?

5. There’s a weird irony in substack using AI to uncover AI in folks writing.

6. Like everything else that is designed to make us more paranoid and suspicious of each other, we the people of substack (lol so sorry) can just not use this.