Raw LLM Responses

I see the same resounding question surfacing again and again in these threads: **Why is Meta openly encouraging/facilitating bot spam on its platforms?** Presumably, there's nothing to be gained: users don't want it, the general public doesn't want it, clients don't want to pay for fake user data, and investors aren't going to be fooled by claims of inflated user activity. Bot and AI spam is what social media companies were seemingly trying to mitigate. It's a confounding business strategy if we're to believe Meta is proactively heralding a dead internet. That's why I don't think this is a proactive strategy. It's reactive, because the internet--as we know it--is already dead. The predominant social media platforms (and yes, this includes reddit) are already *largely* filled with inorganic, bot- and AI-generated garbage. My anecdotal experience isn't enough for a solid guess of the percentage, but I wouldn't be surprised if it approached half of all content. I've seen reports that underscore that trend, at least. Now, if you count content generated by real people that's in response to or mistakenly informed by bot/AI content, imagine how high that number is. And this is quite literally just the beginning; we're still in the *early stages* of the dead internet. Meta sees the writing on the wall. They're not trying to rein in bots anymore. They're not even trying to embrace or leverage them. Meta is just trying to alter the public's *perception* of how much control they have. If people see that Meta is purposely generating AI/bot content and blurring the lines of organic and inorganic activity, then it's harder to claim that the platform is failing its ostensible purpose. This is damage control in the form of, "See? I meant to do that!" The fact that people are questioning Meta's plan is proof that it's working, because to even question it we must assume that Meta is taking some initiative here. Hell, the headline of this article assumes that Meta is ushe