Comment by kubb

> How does this relate to online commenting?

A viable strategy is to disseminate messaging reinforcing a belief beneficial for the disseminating entity, in a way that invokes emotion (like fear or anger), especially in influential spaces allowing for anonymity.

But in general this line of questioning won't lead to a satisfying conclusion. The assumptions you requested (connected world) aren't specific enough to determine what we should expect from comments in online spaces (and by extension, to demonstrate that the current situation is a natural outcome).

> I think you're overestimating the epistemic rigor of the average internet commenter, eternal September, etc.

Yeah, but this place, quite frankly, is above average. Not to the point of being immune to manipulation, obviously.

> Are you implying the "astroturfing" is only on one side?

No. I'm pointing out the "two sides" framing that you insist on is a mistake. There is only one organized camp with a clear financial incentive to have people believe in "Autonomous Coding Agents" which justifies capital investements in that area.

People who are concerned about power consumption, people who don't like hardware unavailability, and people who think that LLMs are useful tools, but they're not even close to autonomous delivery of software systems are all distinct groups without financial incentives. But they do have the right to push back against the relentless messaging barrage from the camp.