Talk:Dead Internet theory

Use of term conspiracy theory
Many if not most of the sources used on this page use the word "conspiracy theory" to describe the dead internet theory. They even get into the "conspiracy" component. Please don't remove the word conspiracy theory without strong supporting evidence from reliable sources. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 02:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * While I don't debate that there are conspiracy theories attached to the Dead Internet Theory, multiple of the sources acknowledge and do highlight the sharp rise in bots and now the use of generative AI to create bot content as well as how algorithms work, etc, all that jazz, and so there is grounds for observation, but then afterwards conspiracy theories are attached to it.
 * I think rewording the very front of the intro to remove conspiracy theory would be fair, as per citing the different sources already cited, but to later add "Conspiracy theory" either as a section detailing the conspiracies, since there seems to be a few particular angles and claims that the sources do detail, it's still a big part of the phenomena, but at it's core I feel like it's more of an observation, than a theory insinuating intent that's malicious or scheming. You could still keep "Conspiracy theory" in the introduction since it is big enough to be part of the major ideas presented within the article. Katacles (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The majority of the sources used call it a conspiracy theory, or nothing.
 * The original post for the dead internet theory cited the increase in bots, but many people had already published on that. It went on to state "I think it's entirely obvious what I'm subtly suggesting here given this setup, but allow me to try to succinctly state my thesis here: the U.S. government is engaging in an artificial intelligence powered gaslighting of the entire world population."
 * For example, one of the better sources is a book titled "The Metaweb" published by CRC Press. It defines it quite clearly "The Dead Internet Theory is a conspiracy theory that suggests the Internet has died and that much of the content we see online is now artificially generated by Al to manipulate the world population. The theory raises concerns about the impact of Al on propaganda, art, and journalism."
 * The "dead internet theory" is not just "most of the internet is bots," although some people online seem to think that is all there is to it. It's a bit like saying the Area 51 conspiracy theories are valid because the government does have a secret base in the desert.
 * I have been wanting to create a section that goes on to detail the use of the "dead internet theory" in culture to describe the increase in bot content, however I can't do this in a way that isn't original research at this point. I have a few examples among the citations on this page, but the idea that I'd want to convey, that some people have begun using the term "dead internet theory" to mean "more bots then people" is not something that has been published in outside literature. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 02:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, and as the problem grows, hopefully there's more reliable sources reporting on the issue at hand so we have enough to warrant a second article and can split the conspiracy theory from the phenomena. Katacles (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06930-7 Freavene (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2024/05/-the-dead-internet-theory-makes-eerie-claims-about-an-ai-run-web-the-truth-is-more-sinister Freavene (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keyword search on the nature article doesn't appear to have the words "Dead internet theory" in it. The second article from UNSW seems to be very similar to the one we cite from Newsweek we cite, but there are some notable differences. I included it as a citation on the main article after seeing it, thanks for bringing it up. The article does not say the Dead Internet Theory is not a conspiracy. The article states what the dead internet theory "essentially claims." It states there is "no clear agenda and no longer involves humans at all." However, the article then goes on to discuss engagement farming, disinformation, and the potential that the "shrimp Jesus" represents "an army of accounts is being created.. Accounts with high follower counts which could be deployed by those with the highest bid." That the internet has a lot of bots on it is not really contested. The Dead Internet Theory in the literature available goes beyond that, and speculates on how various actors are using these bots. This article does the same, and makes it clear they are giving a summary of the theory, not expanding on it in its entirety. We need a source that says something to the effect of "The Dead Internet Theory, previously defined as ________, has not colloquially come to refer to a lot of bots online." Otherwise we are doing either original research, or a synthesis of sources. We have many scholarly sources that define it with the word "conspiracy theory," so it will take some weight to overturn that. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 17:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * it's about bots, which is part of the theory, you're dismissive for no reason, read it Freavene (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand it's about bots. The dead internet theory is generally broader then just bots, although some people seem to be using it to mean that. The paper doesn't really seem to have any impact on the use of term "conspiracy theory" in describing the dead internet theory. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 02:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

On the use of the term Conspiracy theory: Citations needed for section discussing the use of the term to describe "A lot of bots online"
I'm seeing a lot of media on YouTube and Reddit discussing the DIT. These sources tend to use it to describe the internet being more bots then humans, what has been called "the inversion" on YouTube. In the citations we have, the DIT is more then just bots on line, and the word "conspiracy theory" is used. This is causing some issues as users who are seeing the term used online to describe the increase in AI generated content and bot activity do not think it necessary is a "conspiracy theory," because they aren't using it in that context.

Unfortunately, I can not see any reliable sources that specifically say "the DIT has now come to be used by some to refer to the increase in bot and algorithm content, dropping the need for a group of conspirators in government or corporations." Without such as source for that statement, it is original research. A source that says "I think the DIT is true, it's not a conspiracy" can be interpreted to just be conspiratorial thinking if it isn't clearly separating the term.

I think a section detailing this would be meaningful, but I don't have any sources for it that I'm comfortable using. Until we do, the current sources say what they say (hate to be a wet blanket). If anyone stumbles upon strong reliable sources backing up this change in word usage, please add it and we can collaborate to bring that into the page. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 17:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2024/05/-the-dead-internet-theory-makes-eerie-claims-about-an-ai-run-web-the-truth-is-more-sinister Freavene (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The term "Dead Internet Theory" was used to refer to a conspiracy theory, but is no longer
Yeah I know this topic has been covered but I wanted to add my input.

Definitions change over time. It is clear that Dead Internet theory started as a speculative and outlandish conspiracy theory circa 2016 but now is used largely to refer to the observable proliferation of bot-generated content on the Internet. To be clear: I am not purporting that the original theory has been proved correct - I am saying that the term is now rarely used with reference to the original conspiracy theory.

The conspiracy theory origin of the term is well-documented and should remain in the article, but the definition given in the article's current form does not reflect the most popular contemporary use of the term, which does not presuppose any conspiratorial element.

Here are some sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/30/techscape-artificial-intelligence-bots-dead-internet-theory ''"The theory wasn’t wrong – it was just too soon" [...] "In 2021, the internet felt dead because aggressive algorithmic curation was driving people to act like robots. In 2024, the opposite has happened: the robots are posting like people."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2024/01/16/the-dead-internet-theory-explained/?sh=72eef9b957c2 "The [original definition] was written back in 2021, before the commercial release of ChatGPT and before AI became such a hot topic (although it was always a subject of speculation and discussion). Now, the theory has become something of a meme and semi-ironic description of the internet."

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/dead-internet-web-bots-humans-b2530324.html "In recent months, the so-called “dead internet theory” has gained new popularity. It suggests that much of the content online is in fact automatically generated, and that the number of humans on the web is dwindling in comparison with bot accounts."

I propose a rewrite of the lede (and much of the article) to something along the lines of "The dead Internet theory is term most commonly used to refer to the proliferation of AI-generated content on the Internet. Originally a conspiracy theory asserting that the Internet had been entirely replaced by bot activity manipulated by algorithmic curation, the term has been repurposed in recent years to refer to the observable increase in content generated via LLMs such as ChatGPT appearing in popular Internet spaces" Gravyd2 (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If you look above, there is a discussion on getting this change made that I started a while ago. Some issues I've run into so far.
 * First, the Forbes article was included by me as a source a while ago. On February 9th 2024, that source was removed by another editor. This was based on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources that states "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert."Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors or "Senior Contributors" with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable." I don't know how that consensus was reached, but the article listed is one of these senior contributor pieces which fall into the category "generally unreliable."
 * The Guardian article doesn't redefine the full theory and is ambiguous on if the Internet is already dead, or if it is still approaching but "too soon." It also doesn't say it wasn't a conspiracy theory, just that it "wasn't wrong," and explicitly uses the word "conspiracy theory" to describe it without ever saying it isn't one. We have a lot of sources that are saying it is a conspiracy theory, or not saying anything at all, and nothing that clearly says "now is used largely to refer to the observable proliferation of bot-generated content on the Internet."
 * Independent is a good possibility for beginning to address the definition change to "much of the content online is in fact automatically generated, and that the number of humans on the web is dwindling in comparison with bot accounts." The problem here is that the Independent article didn't say that was all the theory suggested, or mention that it has been redefined in recent years. An omission of the full definition is not evidence of a completely new one. This is the best step towards what I'd like to see on the page though.
 * The lead section you're proposing is a synthesis, which is original research. No source says: "The dead Internet theory is term most commonly used to refer to the proliferation of AI-generated content on the Internet." Most sources call it a conspiracy theory. I think we can start to work on the second half though with the article in the Independent to say "the term is sometimes used to describe the phenomena where AI generated content surpasses human generated content online." I've added some text to the lead and "Origins and development" section that incorporates the Independent article and some of what you suggest.
 * Please keep looking for sources like this! GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 17:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input! I'll try and keep track of new sources to support this, then. Gravyd2 (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding an image of "Shrimp Jesus"
I was wondering what the best way to go about this would be. There are many AI images of "Shrimp Jesus" online but I don't know the copyright on them. Would generating an original one as an example be appropriate? How could we source one of the popular ones? GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Copyright can be a little sketchy because AI images are considered copyrighted to the creator in some regions, and we won't know where a genuine found example would have been generated. Creating an original version sounds like the way to go, so long as it looks similar enough to the kind of aesthetic that was or is going around on Facebook. Belbury (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Shrimp Jesus example.jpg has now been generated and added to the article. Belbury (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

lead rewrite
Currently the articles starts by saying the dead internet theory asserts the net is overrun by bots and automated content. But you can believe this without subscribing to the conspiracy theory!

The pertinent part, that should be front and center, is the belief this was intentionally done to manipulate the population. THAT's the conspiracy theory - not merely asserting that bots exist or that automated content is spamming the web.

I suggest you rewrite the first sentence to make this clear, perhaps with:


 * The dead Internet theory is an online conspiracy theory that asserts that bot activity and automatically generated content manipulated by algorithmic curation was created intentionally to manipulate the population with minimal organic human activity.

Currently the two steps "bots exists" and "here's why" form two separate sentences, without it being super clear both are needed to describe the article subject.. 84.217.39.2 (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The whole conspiracy part should be a sub section. Dead Internet in itself is more of a phenomenon than anything else. 2607:FA49:7362:7500:FC2B:3161:CAD4:53AF (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Dead internet theory" as defined by a plethora of sources is a conspiracy theory. The idea that it is just describing a lot of bots online displacing human content is not unique to it and is not in the literature yet. This would be original research, as stated above, several times. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 14:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The wider phenomenon of bots masquerading as human internet users seems like it's already covered in the social bot article, if that's worth your focus instead. Belbury (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have changed the lead a bit based on your feedback. Please let me know what you think and if you have more suggestions. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)