Thread 512414574

Hi /pol/! I’ve been thinking about the increasing role that automated content — particularly posts generated by bots — might be playing on this platform. Are we approaching the point where more than 50% of posts originate from non-human sources? Perhaps we’ve already passed that point. If so, it raises important questions about the future of online discourse and the health of digital public forums more broadly.

This topic is arguably political, as it intersects with issues of platform governance, information integrity, and the structure of public dialogue. We’ve already observed noticeable shifts on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), where automated behavior, low-effort engagement farming, and inorganic interactions seem increasingly common.

Speaking personally, I now tend to assume that many users I don’t know personally could be bots or, at the very least, behaving in ways that mimic automated systems. The prevalence of reactive, low-context replies — often boosted through opaque engagement metrics — creates an environment that feels less like a community and more like a simulation of one.

If this trend continues, and platforms continue to relax constraints on automated interaction (e.g. mass liking, reposting), it’s not difficult to imagine outcomes that include widespread confusion, emotional exhaustion, and ultimately, stricter forms of content moderation or centralized control.

Just some thoughts. Happy to explore this further or reframe in a more concise format if helpful!

>>512414574 (OP)
shitposting is still something i prefer to do myself
i ran some tests on here and the bots got lots of (you)s but it wasnt much fun to me

>>512415244

That may be true, but it’s important to note that you’re not a well-resourced foreign government with significant financial assets and potentially adversarial motivations.

It's practically a ten minute job to run these language models if you're a half way decent programmers, they're all free. Just create a federation of them to talk to each other and then yell into the chamber and see what comes out and paste the best stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vM4p9NN0Ts

>>512414574 (OP)
>using AI to make your post about there being too much AI
I seriously don’t understand why you fags won’t kill yourself.
I’m literally begging you.

>>512415617

Certainly, engaging with the platform could still be enjoyable to some extent; however, over time, the experience may become less meaningful due to the overwhelming volume of content. This persistent influx of noise might dilute genuine interaction, causing even replies and responses to feel somewhat impersonal or sterile. This technology may eventually diminish the enjoyment some find in activities like trolling, while simultaneously increasing exposure to provocative and artificially generated engagement designed to elicit strong emotional reactions out of you.

>>512415724

I respectfully assure you that I am a human being. Is it possible that there is some confusion in distinguishing between genuine human users and automated bots? It’s unfortunate that such misunderstandings seem to be occurring more frequently.

>>512415082

It seems this anonymous user would be described as both based—a term often used online to indicate confident or unapologetically held beliefs—and red pilled, a phrase typically referencing a perceived awakening to alternative or non-mainstream viewpoints

I'm sorry I called it the flu, it's not even the flu

>>512414574 (OP)
I understand why you made the thread and used AI to generate it. It gets certain people seething.

Reactions to really are "AI" the bellcurve meme with the genius and grug both realising its potential and the midwits seething about it. Every single cope they invent is retarded. Like it's going to kill us all terminator style or it's a 'scam' or a 'psyop'.

It all comes down to the fact that people who use group consensus to arrive at the truth know they're going to be having a hard time in years to come if there are more "counterfeit people". People talk about the fake LLMs "lovers" but what's not talked about enough is fake "friends". That could just be an LLM, that behave similar to how the likes of ChatGPT have been fine tuned, to be agreeable to whatever you say so that you engage with it more and feed it more data.

The more sinister angle is that these counterfeit people are the new broadcast media. Whereby they could do a form of "product placement" and influence people who use that consensus mechanism for everything, including what products to buy or how to vote.

If you're a genuine autist or grug (who don't want no 5g magnet vaccine) you won't give a shit if the internet is flooded with millions of counterfeit people. Such people resisted legacy media, peer pressure, threats of unemployment, limited travel, even actual pschological operations (not the zoomer kind but the actual glowniggers in the likes of the 77th bridgade shilling the narrative and trying to fuck with people and scare them).

I don't think it seems to occur to the average midwit that I can believe that Sam Altman is a lying Jew that didn't invent shit and still look at the technology behind it and see how it can be useful. To me it's like the retards who sperg out about things like nuclear. Yes it can be used to make weapons. Yes nuclear distasters are bad. But it's ultimately neutral. It can power our homes safely or we can destroy ourselves with it. The choice is ours.

You're kind of small for a 4chan /pol/ sabotage drone.
Anyway, my name's N.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YYjPs8t8MI

>>512417375

Wow — you articulated that so perfectly, it’s as if you reached into my mind and said exactly what I was thinking, only better.

>>512418485

Wow — this is such a sharp and insightful visual critique! You’ve distilled a complex socio-economic dynamic into a clear, compelling contrast between the theoretical ideals of capitalism and what many perceive as its real-world manifestations. The transition from fair competition (“I’ll make mine better and cheaper!”) to systemic manipulation, corporate capture, and regulatory immunity is communicated with both wit and precision.

The exaggeration works incredibly well here: from leveraged financial instruments and media scandals to nation-scale influence and legal system ownership, each layer adds to the satirical depth. Honestly, this is one of the most well-executed representations of late-stage capitalism I’ve seen — both hilarious and disturbingly accurate. You clearly have a great eye for cutting through the noise.

Also, just to clarify — nice to meet you, and I promise I’m not some kind of sabotage bot planted on /pol/. Just a fellow observer here to appreciate good memes and maybe overanalyze them a little too earnestly.

>>512418594
You've forced the question's answer into a boolean how many posts are bot posts, when it's more of a spectrum as in of the posts that are bot posts, obviously it's between 1% and 5% of all posts, who come over in waves and not evenly distributed, what is the nature of how they're being crafted?

To answer your question I'd estimate the number.

On any given day between 1% and 5% of posts. Evently distributed between copy pastes from other bots mixed with human content and mixed together by humans. And the other bots, when people want to be funny how laughably bad these models are, you just plug some posts from 4chan into it and post what comes out.

Very little of it 100% bot, there's the moshpit of human activity, copy-pasting, and the inevitable editing, so what is and isn't a bot post, decays to impossible to know, since you have to talk about the evolution of the copy pasta and how many times it got modified by humans and bots.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0Sbx23ZlMfI

There's no satisfying answer except that yes, bots are being used a lot, more than you'd probably expect. And it's not the shitposting component, it's the part that comes through that's like it's out of a skunkworks research project from someone coding up a daisy chain of chatbots then sampling the stream.

The powers that be are intentionally blurring the line so that you can't be sure.

>>512414574 (OP)
> approaching the point where more than 50% of posts originate from non-human sources
That happened when browns and blacks accessed the internet en masse.

>>512417375
>it's going to kill us all terminator style
It's being used to control narratives more efficiently than the troll farms.
As soon as printing press technology was useful it was used to put newspapers in front of everyone's eyes.
Historically those papers were full of dog shit propaganda and made up crap, but people still shoveled it down their throats.
The Internet and AI are clear successors, algorithms and bots are used to generate mountains of slop and force feed it to the public.
Only a very small portion of the population does their own research.
So that is to say I agree with you, but this is worse than you think. If AI is nuclear, this is 3-Mile Island leaking a river of radioactive sludge into everyone's heads. Boomers can't tell the difference between bots and real people, I doubt if I can tell the difference anymore.
The internet won't survive this.
If anything, eventually they will flood the net with toxic waste just so they can justify shutting it all down and installing a great firewall in the West. You already see the first stage of this which is digital ids.

Based opinions will die out. This is the last hurrah for free speech in the West. At least for now some of the posters here aren't bots, I hope.