Comment by locknitpicker
4 hours ago
> At some point they may be indistinguishable from human-produced work, so the only way to verify if a site is someone's genuine opinion or AI-generated narrative is through some form of authority (or something else that is very difficult for AI to fake, but that protection can be broken by advancing technology).
Whining about AI is a red herring. If anything, LLMs lowered the cost of producing this type of propaganda.
What's novel about this approach is that the emphasis on building up a facade of authority and credibility is not a central part of the propaganda effort. They can get away with outputting the content in a way thats ingested by other LLMs among the reputable sources, and then they lean upon people's gullibility towards LLM output as some sort of credibility laundering.
There is a reason why one of Wikipedia's central policy is requiring reputable primary sources to support content.
An important nitpick: Wikipedia requires reputable secondary sources, not primary sources. You can't cite a politician's personal social media, for example, you have to cite reporting on those statements. This is part of Wikipedia's defense against novel research - it's supposed to be a record of what is commonly known, not a replacement for, say, Reuters or arxiv.