Any work worth consuming must be a labor of love. Current copyright prohibits people who love newer works from building off of them. I certainly would still advocate for strong anti-fraud laws (you can't claim a work as your own if it's copied or derivative, but you could still distribute or edit it or build off it with attribution). But if an idea or piece of art is worth sharing with the world, it is worth building upon, discussing, sharing, and editing by anyone else who is inspired by it.
In 2026, environments with loose copyright enforcement (social media, online artists, video creation, remixers/editors, etc) are seeing a wealth of creative output. Promising artists who are not independently wealthy are supported from the bottom up (patreon, merch sales) and/or the top down (commissions, sponsorships), and they are happy if people share their work because compensation does work outside the traditional copyright-controlled distribution channels.
Copyright stifles creative output. I believe that if we got rid of copyright (not just for textbooks), the quality and quantity of published work will increase.
Sure, I see your point. I too read and value technical manuals, but I think them worth reading because the underlying scientific truth or technology matters and the builders/maintainers were doing important work when they crafted the manuals.
Yes, I'd rather read the prompt than the output. The problem you bring up with journalists and bloggers is exactly why provocative content is not worth reading. Kierkegaard brings up this point exactly! One of his most famous quotes is precisely this, "The lowest depth to which people can sink before God is defined by the word 'journalist.'". The problem is exactly their motives and the distortion of truth.
I mean "either" as "both". Yes, reading a blog is communication. And you don't need to convince me that plenty of people go about life steeped in nonsense and that listening to what they have to say is a waste of time. But on the topic of existentialism, humans can grasp at truth through lived experience and this produces both a reason for and a means towards purposeful interaction with others.
LLMs at their root are next-word predictors. If there's any communicative value in what they produce, it is due only to the data they were trained on and the intentions of the prompt-director and publisher. I have no problem in saying that I would rather interact with the words from the source than with the machine-generated resultant text.
Maybe it falls under the "Various hobby/alternative OSes up to some very recent ones" category. I'm not going to download a one hundred gigabyte file to find out though...
Yes, for communication to hold any meaning there must be persons at either end of it working towards a common understanding of truth.
Read through Borges' Library of Babylon, it's brief and follows the readers in the infinite library of seemingly random text. I read the lesson to be this: The protagonist will not find meaning even if he finds a coherent book that walks through a philosophy of existence, rather it is by coming to terms with the design of the architects of the library that any hope at conversation can be had.
He saw that pure focus on Fact is empty without a framework of meaning behind it. He does not mean falsehood when he says degeneration! But purpose must transcend and direct the truth from fact.
Always happy to discuss existentialism, but I'm not going to read through an AI generated article. The other comment I wrote today was me recommending Borges to people!
By itself it's not a tell but combined with all else it's hard to pass by. Author's other article from 2025 has less than half the dashes and it's the same length
Article is full of AI tells. "The two men shared surface-level similarities.", "Not X but Y", and em-dashes everywhere. I wish that people would write articles themselves, with their own style, if they expect people to read it.