Comment by numpad0

> The only way out I can see is something along the lines of human curation of human-generated content.

That's retweets.

> undesirable human-generated content was already starting to intrude into this business model, but now generative tools are also producing undesirable content faster than moderation can keep up.

> people will become disinterested, and tools which could previously use algorithmic heuristics to determine which content is good vs bad will begin to become useless.

So what these parts are saying is, tiny monoculture of bored college kids are always going to figure out the algorithm and dominate the platform with porn and spams and chew up all resources, and that both improved toolings and tie-in to monetary incentives intended to empower weaker groups to curb kids only worsens the gap, and that that's problematic because financial influencers are paying to be validated by the masses, not to be humiliated by few content market influencers.

But what is the problem with that? Those "undesirable content" producers are just optimizing for what market values most. If that's problematic, then the existence of the market itself is the problem. What are we going to do with that? Simply destroying it might make sense, perhaps.