> You can't convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced.

I think this is true. But it doesn’t get rid of the possibility of hyperpersuasive bots, just, points to a reason they might not be as consequential as expected. I think bots that are very good at writing rhetoric might happen (why not? They are already good at math and chess), and they would be devastating to the spaces where people go online and argue with anonymous strangers. But I don’t know if that’ll matter. Could be bad for bloggers. Complex for policy people.

IMO if we’re really honest with ourselves, I think we get more of our opinions by stewing in memes and other social processes. Offline or online. The sort of hyperpersuasive ML that we really should have been worrying about was the Twitter/reddit/Tick-Tock engagement algorithms.

yes of course LLMs are already wreaking havoc by scaling up the bot farms of yore but that's not really how I interpreted hyperpersuasion, I interpreted it as a specifically targeted one-on-one conversation with belief in a specific notion as the desired outcome. I believe that LLMs can logos and pathos-max but (depending on the interlocutor) they cannot overcome by sheer force of logorrhea their lack of reputation, credibility, presence, etc.