Anti-AI Sentiment Is Being AI-Generated and the Anti-AI Movement Fell for It
Notes From the Desk: No. 56 - 2026.06.05
Notes From the Desk are periodic informal posts that summarize recent topics of interest or other brief notable commentary.
Anti-AI Movement Inadvertently Boosts AI
We have arrived at the point where people of anti-AI sentiment are inadvertently boosting AI-slop because they are praising AI-slop written posts that are critical of AI.
The new popular trend is engagement farmers using AI to summarize a paper or a concept criticizing AI. But these types of posts have their own hallucinations and inaccuracies.
We are going in circles. You cannot legitimately criticize AI for being an erroneous hallucinating machine and then praise its output just when it happens to sound like something you agree with.
If we are concerned about hallucinated AI content that may contain errors, inaccuracies etc., then there is no justification to knowingly accepting AI-generated content simply because it contains an anti-AI narrative as the argument.
Some Examples:
Nav Toor on X
The following is an anti-AI, AI-generated post that seems to have partially lifted content from one of my own articles. Ironically, this is a hallucinated post about AI hallucinations. The content of the post isn’t even in the paper that is quoted. So where did it come from? Some lines seem to have come from my article about hallucinations from a year ago.
“OpenAI published a paper proving that ChatGPT will always make things up. Not sometimes. Not until the next update. Always. They proved it with math.
Even with perfect training data and unlimited computing power, AI models will still confidently tell you things that are completely false…”
— Nav Toor
Compare “Even with perfect training data and unlimited computing power” with “Even with infinite perfect training data and compute” which I wrote in “AI Hallucinations: Proven Unsolvable”. There is nothing of that sort in the paper cited by Nav Toor, but that is almost word for word what I wrote.
What makes this even more painful is that this valueless AI-generated post has massive reach. The AI-slop post has 3.2 million views and 33k likes. How well did my original post perform that was ripped off? 148 views and zero likes. All these platforms will state something about wanting to get rid of bots and valuing human creators, but the reality looks strikingly different.
And Who Helped Boost This AI-Generated Post?
Ironically, lots of anti-AI accounts did, because it was saying something they expected to hear. The only problem is, the post is hallucinated and the information is incorrect. Not only is it incorrect, the paper referenced is an argument for the opposite of the claims made in the AI-generated post.
I attempted to point out the error to one such account who continued to boost the AI-generated post multiple times:
It is another AI-generated slop post criticizing AI. The actual paper doesn’t make that argument.
It is actually making the case for how hallucinations might be solved or at least mitigated.
But it gets worse. He stated “Even with perfect training data and unlimited computing power”. Which isn’t a concept from that paper. It seems to have been lifted from my own article.
This is what I wrote “Even with infinite perfect training data and compute” in https://mindprison.cc/p/ai-hallucinations-provably-unsolvable
And “Users would leave overnight. So the fix exists, but it would kill the product”
Seems to be the concept also taken from my section “What if They Don’t Want to Solve Hallucinations?”
Sukh Sroay on X (suspended)
And here we have the irony of an account using AI to generate posts while posting a criticism of using AI to write. “… your creative ability may already be permanently damaged…”
Bindu Reddy on X
And it is all for engagement, which is why you will see people post completely opposite perspectives. Bindu Reddy is the CEO of Abacus.AI. The article posted by Abacus.AI is a fully AI-generated criticism of AI describing its harmful effects, while Reddy is posting “use AI for Everything.”
Kalshi Finance on X
This AI-critical post is another AI-generated post. This one got community noted for containing nothing but false, hallucinated information. Nonetheless, it reached half a million views.
Digg.com Blames AI in a Note Written by AI
Digg.com uses AI to blame AI for its failure. This post “authored” by the CEO of digg is actually a fully AI-generated post.
Dr. Kaoru Ichikawa on Substack
This bot account here on Substack referenced one of my articles as input to generate a post. But it is pure AI-slop. No person put any thought behind those words. Just another account automating content making it harder for the rest of us humans to connect with each other.
Detrimental Side Effects of AI-Generated Content
All of these bot posts are going viral despite all of the supposed anti-bot rules of these platforms. Nobody is verifying the accuracy of the content, and some are being dupped into boosting AI content bots, helping the very people they are criticizing.
But what happens next when it becomes so prolific that we assume everyone online is a bot? When do we simply stop engaging and sharing our human work with others?
“Artists have stopped sharing their works, writer’s have stopped sharing their work, now engineering will stop sharing their work all thanks to generative artificial intelligence.
Looks like a step backwards for humanity, what GenAI has done.” — Chomba Bupe
What happens when we destroy the source of all training data? AI isn’t going to spontaneously become intelligent. It is a data dependent machine. And what happens to us when there is no motivation to even communicate with each other?
“I know I go on about this, but comments to all of my posts, both here and on LinkedIn, are no longer worth reading at all due to AI bots.“ — Ethan Mollick
Effort was the great filter for things of value. If there is no effort, there is no filter. It is all indistinguishable. Everyone will enter that space and contribute, but we will not be able to separate those who understand the problem space from those who don’t.
Those who don’t understand take value away from that space. They are a burden, filling it with auto-generated noise. They are disruptors leaching value, not contributing value. They entered a space they didn’t understand because attention remains the prize for the taking regardless.
The Underlying Driver - Attention
When attention is the reward, the nature of the content becomes irrelevant. Whether it is helpful or harmful, truthful or dishonest, news or propaganda. They all get boosted and this is destroying civilization’s sanity.
AI just happens to be a nearly perfect tool for engagement farming and it is being fully exploited for that purpose.
Related Things of Interest
Cultural Courage has a deeper introspection of technology, social media, and how it is all affecting how we communicate with each other. An excellent read!
Another recommendation is “Evolutionary Blindness” by Dr. Mike Brooks. This so closely hits on many topics I’ve written about extensively.
…
This isn’t a failure of intelligence. It’s an epistemic crisis compounded by the attention economy. The internet isn’t optimized for truth; it’s optimized for engagement. Outrage spreads faster than nuance. Hype drowns out the facts. By the time you read this, everything will have changed. Yet, it’s the truth that sets us free. What if we’re blind to truth?Just to be clear, we’re not talking about whether AI is sentient. This is about creating something that we didn’t evolve to understand or control.
…
To Those of Us Who Are Still Real
If you are writing your own content, your are now in the top 1%. Everyone else is just on cruise control, letting AI write for them. This would matter very little to me, except that it is impossible to find the 1% of us who are still real.
Unlike any other challenge that may have existed prior, you will not be awarded for being in the top 1%; instead, you will be punished. There is no advantage. So, most will give up and join the heard of AI zombies. So, here’s to the .1% remaining.
The human mind only has so much bandwidth available to devote to making something of high quality. AI does not contribute substantially to this ability, but it profoundly increases your ability to create volumes of meaningless content and few will resist the easy path.
Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each. I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!
No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …
Why can't the pro-AI crowd just be honest about using AI to do the work for them?
One cannot put their own name on words they did not write and be offended when people don’t respect their integrity.
A reader would be upset if they picked up a book by Stephen King only to find out he didn’t write it.
A reader would be upset if they read an article by Maggie Haberman only to find out she didn’t write it.
I believe the reader has a right to know if the person who put their name on a piece of writing actually wrote it.
I want to make this next point crystal clear:
I don't mind if somebody uses generative AI. I just want them to credit the LLM that did the writing. I want people to be honest about who or what did the actual writing.
And we all know why those who can’t be honest can’t be honest.
This is not a reverse day argument sketch! It is AI all the way down. The slop machine wants to turn everything into slop. Funny how we used to think grey goo scenario is the worst with nano tech; now we got the grey goo of thinking.