[esjeon]

> I've seen similar nonsense producers in early 90s on basis of Markov chains and what not.

Exactly. When it comes to generating a large volume of apparently-good sentences, non-AI (or classical) approaches are still better than good. Those will be equally disruptive, since the defending side is yet to develop a proper countermeasure based on the "sensible"-ness of content. Plus, they will be much easier to customize and adapt to the situation, while ML-based solutions often need remodeling and retraining when repurposed.

> My current pet concern is that AIs will start passing the Turing test not because AIs are getting so good but because humans are getting so bad

AI will start deceiving the public even before it pass Turing test. It's much harder to spot bots amidst people than in a 1vs1 chatroom.

[Kalavala93]

> Exactly. When it comes to generating a large volume of apparently-good sentences, non-AI (or classical) approaches are still better than good.

Can you cite your source? I find this hard to believe.