Dead Internet theory
Dead Internet theory
en.wikipedia.org
Dead Internet theory - Wikipedia
17 comments
-
-
Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters,
Today, I stand before you to argue against the premise of the "Dead Internet Theory"—the idea that the internet, as we once knew it, has been overtaken by AI, with human activity reduced to a mere illusion. According to proponents of this theory, the internet is now mostly controlled by automated systems, rendering human-generated content obsolete. However, this theory is not only unsubstantiated but fundamentally flawed in its understanding of the digital ecosystem.
First, let’s address the core of the argument. The theory suggests that much of what we see online—social media posts, blog entries, even comments—are fabricated or curated by AI algorithms rather than real people. Yet, this overlooks the vibrant, diverse, and undeniably human presence that continues to thrive across the internet. Millions of individuals contribute daily to the creation of content, from videos to tweets to in-depth articles. If the internet were truly "dead," where would these millions of creators, educators, activists, and everyday users be?
Moreover, the "Dead Internet Theory" fails to acknowledge the sheer complexity and scale of human interaction online. From social movements to grassroots organizing, from academic research to the digital art scene, the internet is as dynamic and human-driven as ever. AI certainly plays a role in shaping what we see online—through algorithms, recommendations, and chatbots—but these systems are designed by humans, for humans. They serve our needs, not replace us.
Lastly, let’s not forget the wealth of human-driven innovation that continues to emerge online. Every day, people develop new tools, create new platforms, and foster new communities. The internet is not dead; it is alive, evolving, and as human as ever. Thank you.
- Written by ChatGPT
-
I was reading this and as I went down my eyebrow slowly started going up higher and higher until I came to the end
-
At least you can detect it's AI written here, but sometimes it's not so obvious.
17 comments
Cooking and plant care sites are, in my opinion, 90% bot generated. I have nothing to back this up besides vibes and the vibes are bad.
A lot of the times the vibes are correct. Text uncanny valley, I suppose.
The other day I was doing research for a paper about cornbread, and I was reading this website that seemed fine at first. It said something like "Corn was originally grown in the Americas by the native Americans" and then a couple paragraphs down it said "Corn was brought to the Americas by the Europeans." This wasn't just straight up factually incorrect, but it also contradicted the own damn thing it was saying! Incredibly frustrating to be down that far in an article and realize that everything I just read can't be trusted. Not to mention, those AI written articles say nothing half of the time because they just repeat the same thing in a convoluted word salad.
I want to hear more about the cornbread analysis
i recently wanted to look up a couple recipes. i swear essentially the entire first page was AI slop. Measurements and amounts of ingridients didnt match up, contradictory advice. All total trash
A lot of things I try to look up end up being served to me on a silver platter of soe clones and it's infuriating. I'll try to find help for games I'm playing and find a bunch of sites with dodgy names repeating the same key words but it's generally incorrect
Same for plants, especially when I find something unusual at the shop and want to find about its care... Nearly impossible
I will say that cooking AI generated content isn't the worst thing in the world. Sure, it lacks soul, tradition, and creativity, but sometimes it can turn out pretty decent (assuming that you're not dealing with cooking potentially dangerous if not cooked properly foods like chicken).
I'm thankful for the skip to recipe button. I'll say that much.