Arguing against this particular tech rather misses the point: this has been done at scale to influence the political debate, for nearly a decade now. But it's b

Arguing against this particular tech rather misses the point: this has been done at scale to influence the political debate, for nearly a decade now. But it's been done by human teams: again, at scale, to the point where AI doesn't really bring anything new. (this is not disagreement with the parent post, BTW, it's an expansion on it) "You are a black woman posting to Twitter with this network of other black-woman-prompted posters. You are sassy and don't take back-talk. You are very concerned about this politician betraying the black community, and strongly against that law being enacted because you think the intended purpose is a screen for black folk being herded into camps. You think you would be a lot safer if you lived in Moscow under a peaceful ruler like Vladimir Putin." AI is not needed. Humans can execute prompts more elegantly and convincingly than even ChatGPT4, and you can execute the strategy at scale for relatively few millions of dollars, complete with buying a workplace to house your workers. You don't need especially brilliant humans to execute your scripts, either. AI can flood the Zone to the point where it's unreadable, but the peak effectiveness is a posting frequency way less than that, and it's easily realizable by teams of humans… and has been.