Yes proof-of-identity and authorship would help, however that comes with the extremely perverse side effect of invasive identity verification. Sadly zero knowledge proofs for that are still brittle and not well developed. Hopefully something like that is able to materialize without being the privacy nightmare that is the myriad identity verification mechanisms currently mandated by several governments.
It doesn't help because there's a powerful incentive for people to, frankly, lie. HN is chock-full of obviously AI-generated articles where the authors, caught red-handed, insist it's not their hand. They want the best of both worlds: all the recognition, the reach, and the opportunities that come with being seen as an online authority, but none of the actual effort that you can now simulate with an LLM.
Real ID makes the stakes a bit more tangible - "if you die online, you die in real life" - except with eight billion people on the planet, there's an inexhaustible supply of people who will create accounts for you for a sweet $100.
For hobby projects coding with LLMs feels like fast food.
When someone posts a project with AI collaboration, I know from my own work, that they only commissioned the project to agents, just like we commission someone else to deliver a house, a painting, a ready made piece of furniture, whatever.
The magic of side projects is lost.
Web-Of-Trust was a good idea with poor implementation way ahead of its time. Closed communities work pretty well and seem to be almost unaffected.
So yes, the public internet is dead but I believe that it will be solved with some sort of reputational/vouch systems and invite-only groups where you have to contribute to be accepted and have an incentive to protect that seat instead of posting slop/spam/other agenda to be banned.
Do you assume there should be some single big guy who creates the social spaces?
When you seclude yourself in bubbles, you might feel protected, but really you expose yourself to becoming irrelevant.
The crucial problem is, people confuse message with messenger.
When comments are objectively true and faithful (representing the topic correctly), it doesn't matter who wrote them.
The other way around, knowing somebody personally doesn't guarantee their messages to be true and "not spam". The important thing is to check content thoroughly for actual truth and point out deviations. Just like in an ideal scientific discussion. The remaining social part is a question of civil discourse and enforcing that.
This disregards the humanity of understanding a thing. I vehemently disagree.
You conflate two disparate things there: you as the reader understand something as a human. Who wrote it plays no role for the true content. Expressions of human sentiment are another thing entirely.
When LLMs are used to astroturf and manipulate human community building, they rely on such sentiment to stir emotional reactions. Without a rational, objectively true, basis to stand on, that remains sterile if people value truth.
The problem we currently see comes from people foregoing that rooting in objective truth entirely. They act on pure sentiment and are prone to automatic manipulation by it.
Consider for a moment that all of science is, in some way or another, the search for truth. I have a hard time seeing that any one person—or even any one person with an amazing computer program—can substitute for generations of humans trying to achieve that goal. It is extremely difficult to know what is objectively true.
When you want to understand something as true, you are the one who has to verify it, implicitly. People currently are used to others (supposedly) doing that for them. That doesn't mean, it wasn't externalized.
Now, you're right about individuals being overtaxed without the collaborative effort of society. You have to have chains of trust to have any chance, or personalized AI (which again you would have to trust).
But I was talking about the process of filtering truth collectively. You start from what you believe to know now, team up with others sharing your opinions and go from there. Revising your preconceived convictions is part of proper science.
But now with AI unfortunately I agree. Not sure if there is a way around closing off communities. Even for communities that actively use AI within.
I miss the old forums esp., nowadays everybody posts on LinkedIn and its the "main online place to be"
Me: “What’s your thoughts on [technical issue]”
Them: (response ellipses and disproportionate delay) followed by a very thorough response.
The problem is when I talk to them in real-time, that same person that gives the thorough response now only has a superficial understanding. It’s unnerving when their “real” conversations start using turns-of-phrase that are common in LLMs (I’ve heard them referred to as “Claude-isms”)
If you really want a firm anti-AI community with staying power, it’s looking like you will need a neo-Amish movement, complete with isolationism.
The funny thing is that as soon as communities do this and take an anti-LLM stance they get mocked, called luddites, they get told they're living in a word that doesn't exist anymore and that AI is here to stay, stop going against the current.
What a time to be online...
And to work to pass legislation to give them the middle finger.
AI may be one of the most harmful technologies we have created. It's time to treat it as toxic.
As for myself, I certainly don't want a community based on reactionary dogma, but I would certainly prefer to be around people who at least have their eyes open, and are aware of the corrosive effects that AI can have or already does.
Of course weaving has largely been a female-dominated craft from time immemorial. That doesn't mean you can just apply stereotypes to a historical situation you apparently know nothing about and pretend you're being both witty and insightful.
Personally I run in to it in the workplace now constantly. I work with pseudo tech types that we used to call BAs but now glorify as “product”. Now about 95% of their content is made by AI.
Most of the time it’s just material I actually created then they regurgitated through Claude with errors introduced to make it worse.
Show up, take your money, and get out. Hope that they don't decide they've figured out how to automate you, and build up savings in case they did.
Care about your work as much as your employer cares about you, and remember the layoffs.
Get away from work if you want to socialize.
It definitely isn't. I'm in a half dozen online spaces where no one posts LLM content, either because it's explicitly against the rules or implicitly against the culture, or simply because no one is interested in it.
I mean, I get it: one risks eternal-september-ing them as soon as the hn crowd finds out about them, but sometimes it's really frustrating going down a thread hoping to find better indications for these mythical great communities and always coming back empty-handed.
Maybe send those people a hand-written email ;)
"I saw you posted about a community.."
I know other communities that I really doubt would appeal to anyone here. However, Lobsters is basically Hacker News, but anti-AI, smaller, and with a (low) barrier to entry.
Two more: https://tildes.net, and https://indieforums.linklists.net/ (a giant list of them).
We had BBSes, usenet, email, IRC, webmail, ICQ, social media of all kinds, then private communities via commercial companies (Discord, Slack).
What does a person-to-person communication protocol that leans into LLMs (vs sees it as purely competitive or an impediment) look like?
Whoever figures it out will enjoy the same boons that PageRank gave Google for years.
When you find yourself stuck in a loop, consciously analyzing your situation is key.
While such systems, entire societies even, can look like an overwhelming force impossible to overcome, they are actually built on shaky ground: your own beliefs about them.
It's been like twenty years since I read it but I recall a subplot where Peter and Valentine manipulate public opinion by exchanging inflammatory rhetoric on the Nets to suit their own political ends. Life imitates art.
It's easier for me to imagine it getting ever bigger and and more complex and spawning ever more bubble universes like the ones you're talking about.
In such a system, you can no longer be anonymous, and everything you post is tied to you. It's also incentivized that this is possible due to surveillance capitalism.
I think that this will turn the net into a much more corporate-like entity as you need to mind your image. Like imagine LinkedIn but for everything
After reading this I think I'll read a Steven King book, which will be less horrifying.
Why on earth would you give up the possibility to track people by having a "verified human" level, and spend a bunch of resources on validation, moderation, etc?
There is 0 incentive
I'd say its not all too different from what X did. But there are different technologies at play now. In any case the actual content of your text these days acts already as a kind of signature of llm vs. human made. So this is just codifying it.
I only want to interact with real people, building real connections or pissing off real people. Directly, without any LLM intermediary. Trolling an LLM is joyless. Tricking an LLM into a goatse link does not make the good lulz.
Maybe the places we do this have to change, but really, I'll shed zero tears if exploitative rent-extracting 2010s era Internet beasts like Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc. die under a mountain of LLM slop.
> I only want to interact with real people, building real connections or pissing off real people. Directly [...]
Many people consider offline, direct face-to-face, as the real interaction with real people, with online communication a bland facsimile.
LLMs just add another layer to it.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/10/reddit-will-require-...
I think that's reductionist. Convenient online shopping aside, what made the internet great was the ability to interact with people on an unprecedented scale. The dynamics of these interactions changed over time - from narrow academic circles to billions of complete strangers, often trying to sell you something - but the core premise never changed until now. But think of the newcomer experience today: unless they're very careful, 50%+ of the content they will consume and 50%+ of the conversations they will be having are not going to involve humans at all.
It's been that way for a lot longer than folks seem to realise. Poke into your average neighbourhood Facebook group, and it's just half a dozen Russian bots agitating against the HOA...
However, what used to be a diversity of communities has been horrifically, horrifically crushed into a vastly less diverse set and it's not just nostalgia saying so. Everyone has been herded into centralized systems all of which are so large that they have significantly converged into the same thing, whether you're on Reddit or Facebook or X, despite the superficial differences and the various reactions people may have to various elements of that list.
My local BBS, run by high school students for the local high school students, had picnics. It's been a long time since I was a member of a community that could do something like that routinely. And to the extent you want to say well jerf that's obviously because..., the things that come after "because" are the point I'm making here. I'm not mystified by the effect. Nor is it the only thing that has changed for the worse, it's just a nice little snapshot that is easy to ponder.
Everything on the internet is structured to constantly make things bigger and bigger. But there's a time and place for not bigger.
i don't think LLMs are going to end human-to-human interaction on the Internet, it'll look different, but as long as >1 human values community with only humans, it will find a way.
It's maddening. These services stop being about "communicating" if information isn't actually being conveyed between two people. It's like the people attaching Claude to Slack and their email are cargo-culting the idea of communication itself.
Unfortunately the LLMs are coming for meat-space too. It’s started with smart glasses and it will end with smart contact lenses, where an LLM feeds you lines so you seem like the most interesting person at the party and no-one knows you’re reading it all off a screen or filming it for social media likes.
But this is enlightening because this possibility of being LLM-generated enables cognitive dissonance. There’s a strong correlation (IME) between “you are an LLM” and “you said something I don’t like”.
I don’t think people are as good at identifying LLM content as they think they are so they just fall deeper into an echo chamber.
This will be one of those fun new things we all have to deal with. Verifying whether someone is human or not, people suffering mental breakdowns from thinking everyone they are talking to is a bot, &c. There will be mass shooters and new murders and conspiracy theories and all sorts of things coming out of the gradual adoption of AI tooling.
But I do hope this will help destroy the Internet in its current form. I don't think it's likely, but if it could get bad enough I hope that it destroys social media and forces people to realize even if the content is not created by a machine or an LLM, it's just as bad. T
Geez, when did people get this stupid? Was it LLMs, or were they always this way?
I revise my statement, this is must be a joke account.
> Change the word “LLM” to “tickle me Elmo”. Tickle me Elmos didn’t kill the internet or make online discourse pointless, an LLM won’t either
Seems mean to me, to outright dismiss what parent says just because you feel like it's different from how you talk or think.
I'd agree though, most people AFK don't speak or think like that, but to say no one ("sane") does is making you seem more intolerant than "spreading knowledge" or whatever you think you're doing.
And even that’s being optimistic. I lost faith once I heard that there are people honestly using ChatGPT to ask what to order at a restaurant! If large tech companies like Facebook get their way, you’ll soon be having your smart glasses¹ listen to the conversation, transcribe it, write a response, then show it to you on the lens so you can reply. And that’ll be just for the ones who want to fake it by still moving their lips, because the others will have voice (trained on their own) come out of speakers. “Smart” devices will be having conversations with each other while you are served ads.
¹ The royal “you”, not you literally.
My understanding is that’s a new term, unrelated to the context you’re describing.
It's been a term used on the internet for as long as I've been online.
/s
I think it comes from a Perry Barlow-esque feeling that Cyberspace is an improvement on the "merely" meat real world (perhaps even a proxy heaven on earth, cf. Platonism). Sometimes it is tongue-in-cheek, other times earnest (I assume for people who have found the real world (and their real bodies) a disappointment.)
[0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/what-is-meatspace.
Bisson himself credited the idea to the poet Allan Ginsberg[2]:
> “I was thinking about an interview I had read or heard that Allen Ginsberg was doing with some journalist,” he stated, “and he was talking about poetry and the guy was saying that it was like they were two poets talking or something like that and Ginsberg says, ‘No, we’re just meat talking to meat.’ And somehow that got stuck in my head.”
The earliest known online usage of "meatspace" seems to be two years later, in 1993. Then in 1995, it was apparently used in the Seattle Times[3].
[1] Full text: https://web.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think...
[2] https://thewritingpost.com/2025/01/13/a-look-at-theyre-made-...
[3] Some citations: http://www.wordspy.com/words/meatspace.asp
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/...
Your parent comments needless disdain aside, it was just a silly term used to refer to offline.
(Although I'm starting to have my doubts. Furthest I can get back is 1993 (usenet post). I'm curious to know if anyone can get further back).
Google Books gets me back as far as 1990, but I don't trust it (https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Law_and_Business_...) - I think there's a good chance the publication date is wrong.
Earliest reference in British Newspaper Archive is 1997. I wonder if anyone has access to newspapers.com?
But if it first crops up on usenet in 1993, I can't imagine it being coined much earlier than that.
"Meat proxy" OTOH is a newer term for people who when you communicate with them online just run everything through LLMs and respond with voluminous and mostly unedited slop. Hadn't heard that one until about a year ago.
Here are some concrete examples courtesy of an etymology site: https://wordspy.com/words/meatspace/
The use of "meat" to characterize the physical, analog, arbitrary, biological (as opposed to the logical, digital, formal) pre-dates the 80s/90s deliberate apposition with "cyberspace" afaik, but I don't have time to fish up concrete examples from my library atm.
Anyway, Merriam-Webster claims the terms were introduced fairly close to each other, only about a decade apart, in the 80’s (cyber) and 90’s (meat).