Verifiably Human

A few years ago, the Dead Internet Theory — whose broad tenets were that the internet was algorithm-driven, and that bots and automated content were widely deployed by vested interests to control perception and opinion — was considered a conspiracy theory, and thus not a part of mainstream discourse. Over the last few years, statements from the co-founder of Reddit and from Sam Altman of OpenAI, along with data from Cloudflare and other cyber security firms, have shown that this theory has gained mainstream traction and is no longer a fringe idea floating around in cyberspace. That a third to a half of internet traffic and interactions originate from non-human sources is a shocking statistic that should alarm everyone.

What platforms are already seeing

Social media pages, conversation forums and review sites are already living with the consequences of bot-based and non-human interaction. Take the case of Reddit. The challenge that platforms like Reddit have faced, and continue to face, is the complex relationship they have with AI. Reddit is an important source of training data and holds licensing agreements with OpenAI and Google; it leverages AI for its own answering service and for the advertising tools that have helped boost its revenue. At the same time, Reddit understands that its core appeal lies in the deep and varied interaction between human beings that the platform is able to provide.

Reddit has recently sued AI and data scraping companies for what it believes to be unlawful usage of its data, where no partnership or licensing was sought. It is also deeply watchful of AI bots infiltrating chats between people. A recent experiment on Reddit by researchers at the University of Zurich came under a lot of flak and raised ethical concerns: the study used AI-generated content to engage in discussions in order to test the efficacy of AI in changing people's perceptions when compared with human interaction. Facebook and others have long been accused of creating feeds that serve as self-reinforcing bubbles, deepening existing biases with the sole aim of creating stickiness. Influencers, celebrities and brands too have been accused of “buying” engagement — something that has become very easy with the advent of bots and AI.

Will AI replace the human agent?

The role of AI — whether artificial general intelligence is a myth or a reality — is undeniable. Its effect can range from moderate to transformational across many industries, and it definitely indicates a technological leap. As providers of social media insights and services, our business uses AI and benefits from it. We strive to marry technological prowess with human intelligence in order to create value for our clients. However, it is the latter which is the focus of this article. Customer service firms, research firms and other businesses are often asked whether they foresee AI replacing all of their human resources. A common question asked about social media engagement is this: with the evolution of chatbots and LLMs, will there be a need for human agents at all?

Consider the value of human interaction — not just for platforms like Reddit, but for all brand engagement. Every time a human engaging with an irate customer on behalf of a brand has provided a canned response, the customer's reply often includes phrases like “can you please train your bot a little better” or “can I speak to a human please”. Sometimes these are sarcastic; often, customers are genuinely concerned about speaking to other human beings. Further, when a brand receives a lot of positive engagement — whether genuine or paid for — complainants and even observers wonder how much of it is real. When moments of truth arise and real experience does not align with online reviews, people conclude that the reviews are manipulated and fake. Recent surveys have indicated what we intuitively know to be true: humans prefer to engage with other humans.

A survey of online conversation itself reveals that human opinion varies regarding AI. Some denounce it as another nail in the coffin of what used to be a genuine place of human engagement. Others are neutral, or sit at the absolute opposite end of the spectrum, where they want to embrace the new technology and see it as a leap in human prowess.

Authenticity is not a naïve value

The challenge, as the author sees it, is not whether brands and businesses should or should not embrace AI. Big tech and large organisations are highly enthusiastic about using and implementing it, although they are still to find firm footing on large scale deployment. Working professionals and other individuals are also embracing AI in some way or another. The real challenge is the need to be verifiably human, and to have human-to-human interaction, in the age of “the dead internet”.

What has powered the growth and survival of Reddit and other genuine conversational platforms is what will continue to power the growth of brands and businesses, especially in their engagement online. Authentic content, human touch and genuineness are not naïve values; they form the bedrock and foundation of communication. Automation without a human heart, and engagement without human elements, is not a matter of how “humanised” AI can get, but of how we as embodied beings understand and feel and experience life.

In 1972, the widely regarded Hubert Dreyfus wrote What Computers Can't Do, a critique of artificial reason. The world has come a long way since then, and although Dreyfus is widely attacked, he is also studied — because of his arguments on what makes human beings unique. A casual stroll through conversation on Reddit or on social media shows how much people value “real” opinions and “real” humans. The need to be verifiably human, with the emergence of AI, is going to be a pressing way in which humanity asserts itself. Brands and businesses that seek to build engagement online will have to weigh automated and AI engagement against genuine human experience and interaction. Far beyond blue ticks, verifiable humanness will assert and reassert itself in one form or another.