[jbattle]

I have little fear about AI generating propaganda. It's cheap to write a crappy article and fake a photo or two - or choose a real photo but twist the story around the photo.

What I worry about is "artificial / generated consent". You read some upsetting story, and your skeptical brain holds it at arms length. Then you read commentary in a forum you trust and you see message after message of thoughtfully worded support for some position. I think reading gobs of "informed real people" commentary is far more persuasive - and subtly so - than reading an article from someone you KNOW is pushing a specific perspective.

I like to believe I'm an independent thinker, but a big part of my process is to seek out many different points of view and judging which feel well supported and well reasoned. Consensus DOES play a role in my judgement forming. If consensus is easily faked, yikes.

[iotku]

>I like to believe I'm an independent thinker, but a big part of my process is to seek out many different points of view and judging which feel well supported and well reasoned.

Ultimately that's the best most people can do short of intensive 'independent' research on most topics which outside of your personal expertise generally isn't entirely possible (even if you have good research skills, there's time limitations.)

>Consensus DOES play a role in my judgement forming. If consensus is easily faked, yikes.

Even prior to widespread AI tools this has been a strong method in information warfare, that's why it's detrimental to not show dislikes/downvotes in rating systems, it can make a far greater consensus appear to exist where there is far more disagreement among a topic.

As far as I'm concerned, the removal of those metrics are to enforce that specific purpose.