A lot of people believed it, and the stated reason was that they'd heard the same claims elsewhere. Of course they had, because the AI just aggregated a bunch of common claims that circulate online. AI is really good at making you think it's not lying by giving you something familiar.

There was a recent viral Reddit post where the poster claimed to be a dev at a food delivery company exposing all of their practices. The story itself was nonsense (plus stories on Reddit are fake unless you have really good reason to think they're not), and it was also probably written by AI.

The danger I've seen with AI is that it is really good at reflecting people's biases back at them in a way that they're extremely receptive to. AI-generated content creates this feedback loop where those who hold prior are validated by finding content which literally reads those priors back to them.

I actually disagree with this. For as long as there's been "public" media it's always been possible for someone to "calibrate" things to make people think a certain way. I don't think AI is going to be different in that sense and I don't think that's why it's dangerous.

Is there a term for when people use structural analysis of a system to ward off criticisms of their own actions within that system? I've been seeing it a lot with these "why are you mad at me? I'm just a rational state actor doing realpolitik things" kind of takes lately.

Gotta love how it's "consider what Venezuelans think" until a Venezuelan shows up