> So what? These talking points have been plastered all over the internet for years, the LLM isn't going to produce unique perspectives that will advance the debate for anyone that's already made up their mind.
Remember the original premise:
... LLMs' primary usefulness is as force-multipliers of the
messaging sent out into a society.
My generated example is of course based on content an LLM was trained with, which by definition implies there will be no "unique perspectives." The germane point is that it is trivial to amplify disinformation in ways which can "flood the zone" with seemingly plausible variants of a particular position using LLM's and trivial automation.
> A single post can reach millions of unique viewers over night, regurgitating the same old crap already found in a plentiful surplus online is pointless.
When the goal is to "reach millions of unique viewers over night[sic]", you have a point. However, when the goal is to ensure this can never be achieved, then blasting "the same old crap already found" is an oft used technique.
Just because you're dumping mountains of garbage onto the internet doesn't mean people are going to read it. Novelty is serotonin for the neurons of the internet, recycled copy-pasta crap will rapidly descend to bottom of the algorithm.
Yeah, some people have this model of the internet in which content existing = content being read. The reality is that most internet content already wasn’t being read a decade ago, long before LLMs.
People tend to function more in identity groups, in which the “correct” opinion is learned from a combination of news sources and peers. I don’t think amplifying the content part of that will have much if any effect.
Computer programs have been posting on social media since before the term was coined. I'm sure I've heard of someone who got tired of arguing on USENET and just set up an auto-responder that used a Markov chain based on the other person's own words.
The thing about LLMs is, while most people leave the personality as the easily recognisable default voice (and naturally other people come to hate that voice), they absolutely can act almost any voice. To follow the same example as before, I had it generate some personas and then write in those personas, but I didn't direct pro- or anti- position specifically and it chose for itself on each:
{laconic, wry, resigned, autodidact, Finnish/Finnish, left-libertarian}
Water has fluoride. So do toothpaste and rats. You decide.
(Finnish ESL tone: omission of articles, flat mood, preference for brevity)
{verbose, theatrical, irritable, Sorbonne, French/French, centre-left (social democrat)}
It is outrageous that in 2025, our governments still engage in mass-medication via tap water. Fluoride, like liberty, must be chosen, not imposed. Vive le droit de choisir!
(French ESL: overly formal tone, article misuse avoided but style remains florid and Gallic)
{precise, clinical, emotionally flat, ETH Zürich, Swiss/German, centre-right (technocratic)}
Fluoridation reduces dental caries by 25% in controlled trials. Adverse effects statistically negligible. Debate should remain evidence-based.
(No major ESL errors, but very literal syntax and emotionally muted, as per Swiss German influence)
{boisterous, jovial, sentimental, regional uni, Irish/English, centre-left populist}
They put fluoride in the water but won’t fix the bloody pipes. Classic. You’re meant to feel lucky your molars are safe while the ceiling leaks.
(Native English, but strong regional flavour, irony, and working-class resentment)
{aloof, didactic, melancholic, Heidelberg, German/German, post-Marxist}
Fluoridated water is another instance of technocratic paternalism: health as mandate, not autonomy. Benevolent control remains control.
(German ESL: rigid word order, elevated diction, abstract nouns over verbs)
Remember the original premise:
My generated example is of course based on content an LLM was trained with, which by definition implies there will be no "unique perspectives." The germane point is that it is trivial to amplify disinformation in ways which can "flood the zone" with seemingly plausible variants of a particular position using LLM's and trivial automation.> A single post can reach millions of unique viewers over night, regurgitating the same old crap already found in a plentiful surplus online is pointless.
When the goal is to "reach millions of unique viewers over night[sic]", you have a point. However, when the goal is to ensure this can never be achieved, then blasting "the same old crap already found" is an oft used technique.