The bizarre “dead internet” theory has been confirmed: If you’re reading this, then you’re still human

Science journalist Michael Groothouse, along with numerous specialized publications, asserts that the “dead Internet” theory has become a reality. According to this theory, the Internet is devoid of people, resembling a brightly colored balloon that is empty inside.

While some proponents of this theory believe it occurred in 2017, experts argue it may be unfolding now, with powerful neural networks at the core of the issue. How can one be certain that I authored this text? Or that any living person will read these words? We are invited to explore the enigmatic realm of this conspiracy theory, which appears to be materializing before our very eyes.

No one is available to fix the pipe

Imagine you need to repair a pipe. You search “how to fix a plastic pipe” and encounter something peculiar.

You find two types of results. The first is a forum discussion. Someone, just like you, poses a question to the community about a similar issue. The responses vary, some are helpful, others not so much. Comments like “I wrapped it with duct tape and it was fine,” “I struggled for months, then a professional fixed it in a minute,” or “I replaced the cheap plastic with quality piping and couldn’t be happier,” fill the thread. These discussions are evidently by real individuals, filled with emotions, off-topic tangents, and blurry images.

The second type is polished, yet hollow articles with attractive images, where the search term, “plastic pipes,” is repeated ad nauseam. For instance, “The significance of a reliable water supply in a country or private home cannot be overstated. Plastic pipes are a cost-effective essential for setting up a private water or sewage system.”

Discussions by real people on forums seem to have ceased around 2010. It appears as though such forums no longer exist to ask questions and receive answers, although they do. The second type of result, the superficial articles, proliferate post-2010, increasing as time progresses.

These polished articles seem to be machine-generated, indifferent to whether your pipe gets fixed. It also seems as though the individuals with real experiences have vanished.

If you’ve observed this trend, you might align with the “dead internet” theory, a conspiracy theory suggesting the internet is now predominantly automated content and bot activity, overshadowing genuine human interaction.

Glass wall

The core of the theory is remarkably straightforward.

Imagine running social networks. You diligently create and post quality content, yet the readership is minimal. Despite the abundance of excellent content, most remain unseen on social networks.

The issue at hand: You ventured online to connect with like-minded individuals, but they remain oblivious to your presence, as if separated by an invisible barrier.

Experts suggest that algorithms govern social networks, and gaining their favor is crucial. Once appeased, these algorithms will expose your content to actual people.

The solution seems simple: decipher the preferences of these algorithms and tailor your content accordingly. Success appears to follow, with views skyrocketing into the thousands. However, a problem emerges. Where are the real interactions? Comments under posts are eerily similar, and while there’s an abundance of likes, genuine engagement is absent.

The stark reality sets in: it’s not humans who have taken a liking to your content, but rather bots. These bots engage with your content, promoting it within their own digital circles. You become an internet sensation, albeit in a virtual realm.

On the upside, such content can be monetized. The downside, however, is anonymity. Despite potentially amassing a following of hundreds of thousands, or even millions, your identity remains unknown. The content created to appease algorithms serves no one but the algorithms themselves. And if one were to take a cynical approach, they might as well delegate content creation to AI and reap the financial benefits.

The “dead Internet” theory posits that individuals seeking connection online are met with a barren landscape, rarely encountering one another, and suggests that this isolation was orchestrated deliberately.

It’s a shame

This summer, social networks were inundated with AI-generated images. The one that went viral depicted Jesus cradling a giant shrimp. It was nonsensical, bordered on blasphemy, and wasn’t particularly well-drawn.

Indeed, someone requested this image from an AI. It circulated widely because it was deemed “cool”. But that’s not the case.

The idea was proposed: why not entrust your blog to a neural network? This concept has been embraced by many. Consequently, it appears that the image of Jesus with a shrimp is the unsolicited work of a neural network managing someone’s social media. In other words, this specific image was not commissioned; the network autonomously determined that the algorithms would appreciate it. As expected, mant found it appealing. The image is now being shared, liked, and commented on by other neural networks that operate accounts on behalf of individuals. Robots have created content for another robot, and in doing so, they have inundated social networks—originally designed for human interaction—with their presence.

This phenomenon prompted science journalist Michael Grothaus to suggest that the “dead internet” theory might indeed be materializing.

A Summoning to Which Demons Converge

The conversation began with an anonymous discussion on a forum in 2020, the outcomes of which were encapsulated in a document dated January 5, 2021. Subsequently, experts addressed the subject, and their preliminary remarks of “delusions and paranoia” evolved into affirmations of “yes, it is.” Presently, only the naive narratives on Wikipedia refer to it as “paranoia.”

The text from January 5 is, frankly, written in a disjointed and perplexing manner. It’s evident that a machine did not compose it; it’s unreadable and the point is as follows:

Around 2017, the Network began to throw out real people, purposefully replacing them with bots; this is done by malign governments that need to influence minds and hearts, while depriving the people of real communication; bots took all the dirtiest things that people were chattering about before 2017, learned from it, began to produce the same and slip it to the people;

The public embraced and disseminated it, unsuspecting of its nature. The snowball effect took hold, and now neural network narratives pervade the Internet. All that’s left is to pessimize real users—render their content unseen—and the task is complete.

This absurdity could have been dismissed as mere “flat Earth” talk, yet journalists uncovered an amusing phenomenon during the same period. Posting “I hate text messages” prompts “users” with abstract avatars to flock to you, echoing sentiments like “I hate text messages, but I love my girlfriend,” “I hate text messages, yet I prefer burgers,” or “I hate text messages, but my dog adores them.”

The phrase appeared to be a password, a beacon in the darkness, attracting demons. This oddity aligns with the “dead Internet theory,” which posits that users inadvertently trigger a swarm of bots by using certain keywords.

According to the theory, the persistent hoaxes that resurface are triggered by these keywords. For instance, the recurring hoax from the early 2010s that “at night, Earthlings will see Mars as large as the Moon” is believed to reappear periodically for reasons unknown. The theory suggests it’s akin to a horn’s call, a signal for machines to convene for an undisclosed purpose.

Ruined by greed

The primary criticism of the theory is the assertion that everything was orchestrated deliberately. Contrary to this, some argue it all occurred spontaneously. However, from my perspective, this was their exact goal.

Here’s the scenario:

In the early 2010s, companies discovered they could subtly integrate their advertisements into people’s lives. Your search engine started to suggest a nearby restaurant you never searched for or showed interest in. The priorities of what you see first on social networks shifted. It appeared magical. The precision of this “tuning” was astonishing: it was feasible to flood a neighborhood, a courtyard, a house, or even an individual with a tailored reality.

Google and social network proprietors developed tools for this “reality modification.” Their goal was to draw advertiser funds and outcompete television, whose main limitation is broadcasting universally. They offered advertisers a system that could pinpoint a potential client with precision.

Concurrently, there was a vast accumulation of audience data via social networks. Neural networks were trained using this extensive data set.

Then it is predictable. The owners of search engines and social networks began to determine the behavior and mindset of the audience. You are already used to shopping online. It does not even occur to you: you are offered some goods, and not others. You have almost no chance of buying a product that, for some reason, is out of the recommendations. You read the news and the articles that you are supposed to read – according to the algorithm. You are a member of groups that are run by bots, commented on, and liked by bots. When you talk to the administrator, you talk to the bot. You write to a person you know in a private message – perhaps he has already replaced himself with a bot, and you communicate with him.

We referred to “masters” above, but who are they? The most alarming aspect is that they are no longer humans. They are AIs, and if you were to ask us whether we believe machines negotiate with other machines instead of humans, our answer would be yes. It all began with the innate desire to maximize profits from the Web, which ultimately led to the loss of control over the Network. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first instance where greed has led to humanity’s downfall.

We shall win

The true extent of bot activity on the web is unclear. Some research indicates that bots are not as prevalent as we might think, yet it’s important to remember that bots often gather this data. Can a bot withhold information? It seems likely.

The spread of bots online poses a significant challenge. However, humanity will persevere. We will devise strategies to outsmart artificial intelligence and reclaim the internet. The future is in the hands of humans, not neural networks.

The italicized paragraph above was generated by a neural network. It demonstrates how challenging it can be to detect such substitutions. Aside from certain phrases like “head-on,” neural networks currently struggle with nuances and subtleties. Yet, how can one be certain that a neural network didn’t author this entire text? The implications are indeed thought-provoking.

It seems evident that there will be a revival of print media. When someone invests their own money in a printed newspaper, they’re more likely to read it. The term “paper” will carry more significance, and print advertising will become pricier.

Our dependence on the internet is likely to diminish. Services like online shopping, taxis, tickets, and food delivery are convenient, yet they come with risks. I find myself ordering a taxi via an app only when absolutely necessary, preferring to call drivers I know directly, reminiscent of times past. It’s probable that this practice will become more common.

Currently, those in their early twenties are experiencing intense loneliness, engaging primarily with bots. This is manageable as long as it remains comfortable. However, real life has not started for them. By the time they reach thirty, a challenging detox awaits; they will seek a more natural lifestyle, walking barefoot, eating nettles, reaching out to the sun, and shielding their children from the pervasive influence of the internet. Today’s twenty-year-olds may well be both the first and the last generation to be termed “digital natives.”

The industry is anticipating a significant adjustment. The reality of smart homes and autonomous vehicles may not materialize as expected. Advanced AI is likely to concentrate on scientific endeavors and the like, yet it will still play a role in daily life. Humans desire to retain their humanity and sovereignty over the planet. And in this aspiration for victory, we concur with the neural network’s perspective.