[notahacker]

> "nigerian email spam" contains grammar mistakes, bad translation, vary bad wording... by design. To weed out those unlikely to end up sending money

this theory is popular, but ignores the simple fact that mostly it weeds out the 90% of people whose email provider offers spam filters which are entirely uncorrelated with gullibility, as well as how low-risk, high reward email exchanges with the tiny fraction of people that bother to reply are to anonymous scammers in faraway low income countries.

I agree LLMs aren't that helpful though: the better scammers are able to generate leads even more easily through copy/pasting other people's classified ads or genuine business enquiries. And yes, having fooled a relatively smart person with someone else's prose into sincere interest in doing business with them, they then reply with poor English, unsettling disinterest in anything other than the money and repeatedly reassuring you it's safe, and a payment proposal that makes no sense (not as a filtering technique but because that's the best they can do). LLMs only solve the first bit.

[Thoeu388]

> mostly it weeds out the 90% of people whose email provider offers spam filters

Do you thing it weeds out 90% of politicians who talk total gibberish?

At end, it will enforce people who are in your social network. Some random celebrity will be ignored. Dude who lives 1 km from your location will be boosted.