> nothing in the article is AI-specific

Timing is. Before AI this was generally seen as crackpot talk. Now it is much more believable.

You mean the failed persuasions were "crackpot talk" and the successful ones were "status quo". For example, a lot of persuasion was historically done via religion (seemingly not mentioned at all in the article!) with sects beginning as "crackpot talk" until they could stand on their own.

	▲	gaigalas a day ago \| parent [-]
		What I mean is that talking about mass persuation was (and to a certain degree, it still is) crackpot talk. I'm not talking about the persuations themselves, it's the general public perception of someone or some group that raises awareness about it. This also excludes ludic talk about it (people who just generally enjoy post-apocalyptic aesthetics but doesn't actually consider it to be a thing that can happen). 5 years ago, if you brought up serious talk about mass systemic persuation, you were either a lunatic or a philosopher, or both.

▲

wongarsu a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Social media has been flooded by paid actors and bots for about a decade. Arguably ever since Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring showed how powerful social media and grassroots movements could be, but with a very visible and measurable increase in 2016

	▲	gaigalas a day ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not talking about whether it exists or not. I'm talking about how AI makes it more believable to say that it exists. It seems very related, and I understand it's a very attractive hook to start talking about whether it exists or not, but that's definitely not where I'm intending to go.

▲

lazide a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s been pretty transparently happening for years in most online communities.