I skimmed this criticism of Pokimane and got to the fourth paragraph before I realized I was reading a chatGPT output. The emdashes are the most obvious giveaway, but the constant restatements and trouble with building conclusions are also clear tells, if a little more subtle.
In this case I agree overall with the post, but GPT (or grok - they all write the same) argued the point for the poster and did a mediocre job overall, especially for a post with 3M views. More troubling is that the guy insists he wrote the whole thing himself, which has apparently fooled thousands of people. He's far from the only one, either. It's not uncommon to see people using AI to respond to an argument.
I don't know where this is going. AI is a powerful force multiplier, but if more and more people outsource their writing to it, we will eventually get to a soft version of dead internet theory where real people are volleying back and forth with GPT responses but don't fully understand what they're saying to each other. Scammers and grifters will almost be indistinguishable, superficially. I'm surprised the Indian contingent hasn't figured out how to use GPT outputs en masse, but I'm sure it's coming.
The only hope is that people will develop enough AI literacy to recognize automated content. We'll see if this happens.
Exactly. You can spot the GPT sludge a mile away—overwritten, over-punctuated, and obsessed with sounding “balanced.” It’s not writing, it’s auto-compliance.
And yeah, this is how we slide into the dead internet. Real conversation replaced with AI-generated summaries of other AI-generated takes. No stakes, no conviction—just endless beige noise. It’s the perfect tool for a culture that’s more scared of being problematic than being boring.
We’re not debating ideas anymore, we’re curating consensus from a machine trained to avoid offense. It’s digital lobotomy with a smiley face.
Sort of, at best.
The platforms the models are trained on have been censored for a decade+ at this point, so much of the input to the model is wrong/bad.
The output is also intentionally biased to block "right wing" ideas as well, because amusingly even with censored input, the AI still comes up with "right wing" responses.
There isn't any kind of "consensus" in that. It's just leftist garbage all the way down with the mainstream models. Even trying to train an unbiased model, you need enough source material for it to learn from. There is no uncensored version of wikipedia. And that's why liberalism infects and destroys any platform that attempts to become "right wing" versions of things.
It's been planned for quite some time, we just didn't understand the full extent. The censorship was for people in the short term, but it was really for AI.
Just so we're clear, my post was 100% AI-generated sludge :-P
The em-dashes and lack of criticising faggots gave it away.