In this case there's nothing wrong with the message's observation by itself. The observations about continual fake environmental alarmism is valid, and the motive behind the message appears to be to bolster alarmism fatigue and reduce trust in the state.
Someone using AI for this message could be doing so to test for flaws in the delivery. I see no problem in that by itself. I don't mind helping point things out to help the improvement process. The second simultaneous reason could be more nefarious, and that is the concept that by encouraging fatigue and distrust in environmental topics, that genuine alarmism raised for the financial situation becomes ignored by the population.
When a real person puts their face forward, they have some skin in the game. If they say ridiculous things they risk losing face and being disregarded in future. But AI generated personas can essentially function like a type of forum sliding and consensus breaking. You can make it seem like 1000 people have sufficient conviction to put forward and opinion with their face. Meanwhile, it's actually a tech or two playing with prompts.
Reunto 0 points 5 hours ago
In this case there's nothing wrong with the message's observation by itself. The observations about continual fake environmental alarmism is valid, and the motive behind the message appears to be to bolster alarmism fatigue and reduce trust in the state.
Someone using AI for this message could be doing so to test for flaws in the delivery. I see no problem in that by itself. I don't mind helping point things out to help the improvement process. The second simultaneous reason could be more nefarious, and that is the concept that by encouraging fatigue and distrust in environmental topics, that genuine alarmism raised for the financial situation becomes ignored by the population.
When a real person puts their face forward, they have some skin in the game. If they say ridiculous things they risk losing face and being disregarded in future. But AI generated personas can essentially function like a type of forum sliding and consensus breaking. You can make it seem like 1000 people have sufficient conviction to put forward and opinion with their face. Meanwhile, it's actually a tech or two playing with prompts.