Thank you for sharing. As the article says, it will take a few years to solidify, and then to enforce. But this is an excellent, excellent step in the right direction to combat, for example, unregulated trawling on the high seas.

Valid points. Will be interesting to see what happens when the AI art is actually competent and enjoyable.

However, it seems to be that humans inherently enjoy something less if they know it has been generated by a program in a few seconds. There is no creative process, no soul, "a mockery of what it means to be human." The AI itself isn't even a thinking being, not even close (though one day that could change).

You are right about one thing. We will adapt, one way or another.

You are underestimating how difficult it is for the editors to keep up with the volume of submissions. Between minimal staff (volunteer or otherwise) and already razor-thin profit margins, submissions rocketing with entirely garbage AI submissions is a difficulty magazines can't really afford.

In other words, the AI submissions are not the best content. Not even close. They are simply muddying the waters and making it harder for the editors to find the good human stuff because they have that many more documents to open, that many more submissions to reject, that many more accounts to ban. It's just spam.

As for the AI to sort and filter out the AI-generated submissions, the tech only has about a 50% success rate at the moment. The editor commented on this. It's simply not accurate enough at the moment.