The Internet: Where Does the Line Between Humans and Bots Begin? | Exploring Technology

I I know I’m real. And you, dear reader, know that you are the real deal. But have you ever wondered if there’s something strange about other people on the internet? Feeling like the spaces you used to frequent are a little dead? You’re not alone. The “Dead Internet Theory” first appeared on the web nearly three years ago and was catapulted into the mainstream by:
Atlantic Essay by Caitlin Tiffany:

The dead internet theory suggests that the internet has been almost completely taken over by artificial intelligence. Like many other online conspiracy theories, this one’s audience has grown thanks to discussions by a mix of true believers, cynical trolls, and bored and curious chatterboxes… But unlike many other online conspiracy theories, this conspiracy theory has no morsel of truth to it. Person or Bot: Does it really matter?

At the time of writing, the deadest part of the internet was the moribund pre-Mask Twitter. The site’s active curation provides the same “relevant content” to hundreds of thousands of users, who can post things like “I hate texting, so come over here and give me a hug” on Twitter. Adjusted and reposted. The distinction between humans and bots has also been blurred by recommendation algorithms that make humans behave like bots.

Beyond that central idea, the 2021 version of the conspiracy theory has taken a strange turn. One supporter, Tiffany, suggests that “the internet died in 2016 or early 2017 and is now not just ’empty and empty’ but ‘totally barren.’ …As evidence, the Illuminati pirates say, ‘I’ve seen it.'”

This theory was not wrong. It was just too early. Talk about the internet that died in the summer in front ChatGPT’s release echoes my colleagues at the Guardian who confidently declared in the summer of 2016 that: The next few years will be quiet.”

In 2021, the internet felt like death. This is because aggressive algorithmic curation has made people behave like robots. In 2024, the opposite will happen. Robots will now post just like humans. Here are some examples:

• on Twitter itself, Musk rescues the site from the frying pan, throws it into a volcano, and then a poorly thought out monetization scheme buys a blue checkmark, attaches it to a large language model, and spins it out of control in response to viral content. I was able to make a profit by doing so. This social media network is currently paying verified users a portion of the ad revenue they receive from their comment threads, turning the most viral posts on the site into low-stakes Allbots battle royales. .

• Death pervades Google. Being at the top of search results is a valuable position, so valuable that companies competing for it can’t afford to actually write about it. No problem. ChatGPT can create anything in an instant. Of course, this is only worth it if the resulting visitors are people who can make you money. Bad news, because…

• …all over the web, bots account for about half Percentage of all internet traffic, according to a study by cybersecurity firm Imperva. Almost a third of all traffic is what the company calls “malicious bots,” carrying out everything from ad fraud to brute force hacking attacks. But even the “good bots” struggle to fall into this category. Google’s “crawlers” were welcome when updating search entries, but less so when they just trained an AI to repeat what users wrote, without submitting users. did.

• And then there’s Crab Jesus. An unholy combination of Facebook content farms, AI-generated images, and automated testing to determine what goes most viral. led to weeks of viral content It features a combination of Jesus, a crustacean, and a female flight attendant. One such image depicted Jesus wearing a jacket made of shrimp and eating shellfish. Adding to the confusion was the sight of a kind of crab centaur savior walking arm in arm with what appeared to be the entire crew of the long-distance flight on the beach. It was at least interestingly bizarre and a step up from the previously viral 122-year-old female friend who posed in front of a homemade birthday cake.

As much as I’d like to offer a ray of hope, a little tip to reinvigorate the internet, I can’t. It really feels like the consumer internet is in the late stages of a zombie apocalypse. The good news is that there is a safe haven. While “private socials” like WhatsApp and Discord servers can hide from the onslaught in secrecy, smaller communities like Bluesky and Mastodon are hidden and safe for now.

In the medium term, I expect to see large platforms returning to the wilds of their services and trying to bring some humanity back to their services through a combination of account authentication and AI detection. But whether it will be too late by then is an open question.

Musk still needs a Twitter sitter

At least there’s still one person on the internet. It’s Elon Musk. He spent $44 billion getting obsessed with posting and being called idiots on the platforms he owns. So his latest legal defeat will hit a sore spot after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept his plea to be released from his court-appointed posting babysitter. . From our story:

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected Elon Musk’s appeal over a settlement with securities regulators that required him to get prior approval for some tweets related to his electric car company Tesla.

The justices did not comment on leaving the lower court’s ruling against Musk in place, but Musk complained that the requirement violated the First Amendment and constituted a “prior restraint” on his speech. . The ruling came a day after he made an unannounced visit to China to secure a deal to deploy Tesla’s driver-assistance features locally.

For those who don’t have an encyclopedic memory of Elon, Musk tweeted in 2018 that he had “secured funding” to take Tesla private. The company was never taken private, and subsequent lawsuits revealed that he had only discussed it a few times at most. To end the bill, Musk resigned as Tesla chairman, paid $20 million and agreed to have in-house lawyers pre-approve all social media posts about the electric car maker.

He has since regretted it and is fighting to overturn that part of the contract (which he entered into voluntarily to avoid an adverse trial). “The preclearance clause at issue continues to cast an unconstitutional chill on Mr. Musk’s speech whenever he considers making it publicly,” his lawyers argued.

Well, the Supreme Court of the United States doesn’t care. The government did not take up his case, tacitly deciding that no real constitutional issue was at issue.

What’s strange is that the company’s in-house lawyers already seem to be taking a very hands-off approach to Musk’s posts. On Friday, he responded to early Facebook employee Dustin Moskowitz’s claim that Tesla is “the next Enron” by posting a photo of a dog putting its testicles in another dog’s face. (Please click at your own risk.) If that’s Mr. Musk’s tweet with “unconstitutional chills,” I don’t want to know what he would send if he felt truly free.

Wider TechScape