I think as a new user, too many strict rules end up driving new users away, and the lack of new activity on this network causes a decline in the network and a drop in the token price. I mean, if the strict policy actually worked, the token price wouldn't have dropped this much. Unfortunately, some old users treat new users like they caught a thief, and their behavior is really bad. Let's remember that the whole philosophy of cryptocurrencies is decentralization, meaning a single group isn't supposed to make decisions for everyone.
Suppose an account writes all its content based on AI, and other users actually like it! Just because a certain group doesn't like it, its publication shouldn't be blocked.
You assume the network policing itself from bad behavior leads to the price of token falling, which doesn't really compute.
They can post and receive tips if people really like AI content and the author really wants to receive rewards on content they've spent no effort on.
Shouldn't we just reward the AI directly in that case and cut off the middleman, i.e. the author since they're the ones that produced the content?
What you're saying is really baffling and it makes me question your judgement.
AI doesn't create content on its own; it just acts like an assistant. Today, the idea is what matters, not just the execution. Right now, AI is just a producer, and if it makes anything all by itself, it just ends up being repetitive.
If you look on YouTube, you'll see tons of channels making movies and animations with AI, but the only ones getting high views are the ones where a fresh idea was executed using AI.
So, to answer your question: No, we shouldn't pay the AI—which is basically just following orders—for the content. We should pay the human manager who's directing it and came up with the core idea in the first place. Plus, that same manager is already paying a monthly subscription to use the AI anyway!
By the way, I used AI to help translate this exact text into English. So, did AI write these thoughts, or did I?