Menu Menu
[gtranslate]

What is the ‘Dead Internet Theory’ and is it real?

With the ceaseless growth of AI since 2022, conspiracies surrounding the so-called ‘Dead Internet Theory’ have grown stronger. First thing’s first, though, what the hell is it and does it have any credibility?

Is this an online rabbit hole worth getting lost in? Is it pure storm in a teacup? Did a human even write this article? So many questions.

If you spend any significant amount of time on Twitter (X) or Reddit, chances are you’ve already seen something about ‘Dead Internet Theory’.

Arising from the tendrils of 4Chan around eight years ago from origins hard to pinpoint, the theoretical concept is that bots usurped the presence of people on the internet in the 2010s.

The belief is that the vast majority of internet traffic, social media posts, and users have been replaced by a faceless digital army and that people no longer shape the direction of the world wide web.

Hence, as us mortals give way to the machines and their inorganic content, the internet is described as ‘dead’. That’s the short version anyway. Thanks ChatGPT.

Evil governments and corporations

The longer version is way more fun, though, so let’s get into that.

The real conspiracy part stems from the idea that humans deliberately spearheaded efforts to get us here. AKA government agents have unleashed bots to diminish our presence, invade algorithms, and manipulate the human population for all the evil plots they can muster.

A 2021 thread titled ‘Dead Internet Theory: Most of the Internet is Fake’ – published on forum site Agora Road’s Macintosh Café – describes raising the bot invasion as the ‘setup’, with the ‘thesis’ part basically lamenting the US government for the ‘gaslighting of the entire world population.’

The ceaseless rise of AI since 2022 and its industry-wide integrations has served only to heighten the cynicism of these suspicious folk.

Comments sections are ruined for all of us when AI-generated promos and bot accounts take over and ignore all relevancy of the original post, but some believe companies actually want bot accounts generating engagement for other bot accounts whilst we scroll through an eerie, vacant echo chamber.

This constant glut of ‘creator-less’ content is colloquially referred to as AI ‘slime’ – because our feeds are covered!

Are some of the concerns valid?

The insidious government stuff is, if we’re being kind, a bit barmy, but there’s genuine credibility to the idea that bots may soon create more online content than people.

A 2022 report from European Law agency Europol suggested that as much as 90% of everything online may be synthetically generated by 2026.

Not only does this mean advertisers will increasingly thwart our browsing with ‘are you human’ verification checks, but misinformation will almost certainly become a stronger adversary than it already is.

Bots were once super easy to distinguish, and for those who know the giveaway signs most still are, but the proliferation of AI image and text generators can make faux accounts seem genuinely legit. Check out this AI-generated influencer if you don’t believe us.

Already, several attempts at swaying political outcomes through AI astroturfing have been uncovered, and concern is growing that the ‘super election year’ of 2024 may see deceptive tactics employed on a scale never before seen.

@thredmag

To be honest, it’s not like Instagram was an accurate representation of anyone’s life to begin with 📷 #ai #aiinfluencer #instagram #socialmedia

♬ original sound – Thred Media

Moreover, if synthetic content becomes more prominent than human creativity online, what will the generative platforms of the future have to feed their systems as they strive for more sophisticated models? This digital cannibalism could be a recipe for spreading false, or at least unverified information.

Doom rhetoric aside, the internet experience has generally become markedly more corporate and unenjoyable in recent years due to bots and generative tech. Earlier this month, my attempts at finding a car with a genuine product description was frankly painful.

Meaningful connections and communities are harder to foster online, for sure, but hysteria about a global brainwashing operation from governments is probably unwarranted, for now.

Nevertheless, there’s one sentiment all of us can agree on, especially the Twitter (X) users: No, we’re not subscribing to your OnlyFans.

Accessibility