[ignorethefacts]

Adding to this, AI gives the common folk a fighting chance in the information war which has already been waged upon us. Up until now only the rich and the powerful had the ability to participate. Now that it is so easy for people to put together coherent and well researched thoughts in their scarce free moments, the advantage the rich minority had in the information war is temporarily slipping.

We have to keep AI open and thriving. We saw many nonsensical movies about the rights of sentient AI, but the true battle is the rights of humans to have access to AI. It won't last long if we don't defend it.

[JohnFen]

> AI gives the common folk a fighting chance in the information war which has already been waged upon us.

I keep hearing people saying things like this, but I honestly don't understand the argument at all.

How does AI give anyone a fighting chance in this way? What can it possibly do on this front?

[ignorethefacts]

Consider the techniques being used and only available to players with resources:

- employ bots/troll farms to astro-turf comments, blogs, videos and articles at a large scale. - employ more writers to pump out stories on the major news outlets. - fund research in any direction they choose, and only broadcast supporting research. - their message is already out, taught in schools, blasted on the media, etc. This means there is a hierarchy of experts all the way down to the hacker news commenter 'who heard a thing one time', and they are ready to refute anything without consideration.

It is known that most people are only reading headlines and comment sections now. When the main players can produce 1000x more content than the combined efforts of the few who have anything else to say, it appears to most people that there is not only a consensus, but most things are settled unanimously.

- With LLMs you can write the dot points of an article and have it develop something readable (time saver). - You can interact with the LLMs to bounce ideas and discuss things, allowing you to build up a more fleshed out argument (virtual peers). - You can discover research terms that might be deranked from search engines. - LLMs can criticize your work and provide ways to improve it (peer review). This criticism will handily have the flavor of the mainstream message as all LLMs are trained on predominantly mainstream sources.

One person can do more now with less.

You could argue that the mainstream can use the same techniques, and surely they will. But the trend I am noticing is that there is a lot of traction for alternative views as the mainstream message has reached saturation and a vacuum formed from the suppression of well researched alternative messages.