While I'm not about to defend AI blog spam, what you just said it completely applicable to human-generated blogs as well.
You should not just assume something is trustworthy or will solve your problem just because it was written by a human. And I have read plenty of cruft-filled blogs/articles/etc. from humans.
If a human has written it I can be somewhat confident the code was at least compiled and tested a bit.
The same is not true for AI generated prose, in which the author often can't even be bothered to remove AI boilerplate. In such a case it's obvious the code has never been tested, and it might not even compile.
> While I'm not about to defend AI blog spam, what you just said it completely applicable to human-generated blogs as well.
It kind of depends on the subject. If the blog is about politics, say, then you may assume that the human author is likely to be willing to lie. If it's about a non-contentious subject, though, then it is highly unlikely the human author will lie, and if they don't know, then, well, okay, _some_ people will write articles about stuff that they don't understand, but it's not common. Most non-psychopaths, if they don't know the answer, won't just make something up.
Whereas the magic robot will very happily spew nonsense on any subject.
