Human-written text doesn't necessarily mean that it's automatically better. Humans can create slop too. They can publish articles written by a marketing department or a lobbyist. What kind of text was an article written by a human 20 years ago for a free newspaper at a train station?

Sure, AI can generate slop at a very high rate, but it can also help writers reformulate a text or act as a proofreader. The editor's choices matter, as do the result and the audience's taste.

However, lately, there has been growing AI fatigue, and people are probably becoming willing to pay more if they can be sure that there's "No AI inside" (something like "No palm oil inside"). If people are willing to pay for it, we'll see.

Personally, on my blog, which I moved away from Blogger and which has been deindexed by Google, I have the same statement: 100% handwritten (with a disclaimer that I am not responsable for crawler hallucination). Why? First, because writing is really the fun part. I make better editorial choices when I write the text directly. Second, there's the audience. On my blog, over 90% of the audience consists of bots and crawlers. They need handwritten stuff, and if this audience grows, it probably means they like those posts.

In the end, the funny part is analyzing my text with LLMs after a post is published. The result is surprises and more ideas. If I ever ask what I need to change to make the text sound more human, the response is usually that I have to add more slop. That's the part I leave out.