[tablespoon]

> But I'm not convinced it's a clear negative, in the long run. Humans have been concocting convincing arguments for complete BS for millennia. Perhaps having non-humans generate such arguments will make humans less inclined to believe BS based on such arguments. ... In the meantime, things will be very strange, but not clearly better or worse.

I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. It used to be expensive to concoct passable BS arguments, now it will be unbelievably cheap. The flood that enables could, for instance, block off the ability of constituents to communicate to their representatives. If a black-hat lobbyist can generate and sent 500 unique "constituent" letters a day to on representative, that representative will either be influenced by that BS or stop reading the letters altogether (because it's too much effort to try to sort them out).

I think what disinformation has taught us is that people isolate and disengage in the face of a torrent of BS, they don't engage more thoughtfully.