Talk:Dead Internet theory

The article should be changed

Clearly this is not a conspiracy. The amount of content generated by AI has surpassed the accessible non-AI generated content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:B47:D000:4C1D:FE5:2A65:A25B (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not a theory anymore but a fact 2806:10A6:12:7516:384E:FE51:5AD0:28D (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

We still list Theory of relativity is still a theory. The name that is used in the sources is Dead internet theory. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we don't say in wikivoice that it's a conspiracy though. I think it's time for the 'conspiracy theory' label to go. Amberkitten (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

We have multiple sources that use the term "Conspiracy theory" when describing the DIT. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we should make a distincion between two framework:

-the conspiracy framework where the dead internet is supposed to be part of some big plan to manipulate the world ---

-the pragmatic framework where a lot of different actor have a personal interest in using automated users of the net resulting in a competition to get real human interaction and increasingly taking more place on the net.

The first one might have been what originally described by the term "dead internet" but it's not anymore what the majority of people think when talking about it. Astro Flam (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd love to, however as I've said, the sources do not clearly make that distinction. Us making that distinction would be OR. There isn't a source saying that the definition has changed and that it no longer means what it once meant. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

At the very minimum it should not be in the first sentence as ai is making this theory more true by the daily. 2601:586:4600:97D0:F56E:D426:EF47:2AD2 (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

That's simply your opinion. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. -- Jibal (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Every source used toward the assumption of 'conspiracy theory' is vastly outdated to the current model of the internet. It's not 'simply their opinion' when the overwhelming amount of reliable sources with any recency do not claim it to be a conspiracy theory. The article's wording is too old for the concept that it attempts (poorly) to describe. Wikipedia gets updated as things change, not held in place because one random source one time said something was a conspiracy theory. 173.81.18.122 (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Please, find an overwhelming number of sources that not only refer to the DIT, but specifically state that it is not a conspiracy theory. The sources in this article are only a few years old, at most. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Find me an overwhelming number of sources that state that Relativity IS NOT a conspiracy theory. If you cannot, and I can find ONE that states Relativity IS a conspiracy theory, the Theory of Relativity article will be summarily rebranded to a conspiracy theory article. 173.81.18.122 (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a false equivalence. There are not very many sources discussing the DIT, and of these we have multiple calling it a conspiracy theory. The main sources we use for verification of notability refers to it as a conspiracy theory. On the other side of the scale, we do not have sources that claim it is not a conspiracy theory, that the term has changed its meaning, or that it is definitively no longer a conspiracy theory. The sources we do have that lean towards this are either dubious, do not clearly define the DIT, refer to only part of the theory without clearly separating it from the conspiracy elements, or claim something along the lines of "The Dead Internet Theory may soon be a reality." We don't have multiple scholarly sources and reliable news articles defining relativity as a conspiracy theory, just a few fringe sources. Without multiple quality outside sources to counterbalance the ones that call it a conspiracy theory, we are left with the lede that we have. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The only false equivalence is between outdated sources and a stuck-up requirement for the phrase to be used in kindergarten terms in order to satisfy you particularly. There are hundreds of sources that talk about AI-driven internet death by various different terms. [1] [2] [3] [4] are just examples (whether matching source guidelines or not in this exact instance, I don't really care)

The so-called "Dead-Internet Theory" is one term used to describe a phenomenon that is new and ever-changing. Does every article about a conflict in a country have to refer to it by the Wikipedia article title (Russia-Ukraine War) in order to qualify as a valid source, or do you really want to honestly claim that because an article titled in big bold letters saying "INTERNET TRAFFIC IS MOSTLY BOTS NOW" doesn't say "dead internet theory" it is not a suitable source for the article?

The further point to be made is that claiming we only have certain sources which are so objectively known to be outdated by anyone with half a bit of common sense is the fault of the people trying to uphold the article as-is on said bad sources without going and doing their own research to the benefit of the actual information provided. Right now this article is providing blatantly false information; it should be removed until someone who actually wants to cite current, accurate sources does so for the purposes of addressing this misinformation. GermanTacos (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The sources we have that refer to it as a conspiracy theory are less then 5 years old. One 2023 source clearly defines it:

"The Dead Internet Theory is a conspiracy theory that suggests the Internet has died and that much of the content we see online is now artificially generated by Al to manipulate the world population. The theory raises concerns about the impact of Al on propaganda, art, and journalism."

— The Metaweb: The Next Level of the Internet

The Atlantic article that brought this term into the mainstream is from 2021, and in the first line states:

"A conspiracy theory spreading online says the whole internet is now fake. It’s ridiculous, but possibly not that ridiculous?"

— Maybe You Missed It, but the Internet ‘Died’ Five Years Ago

A more recent 2025 BBC Audios publication states:

"In the early 2020s, a conspiracy theory started circulating online known as the dead internet theory."

— "How dead is the internet?"

There are other sources cited in the article, but these are some of the stronger ones we use. Based on the existing literature that discusses the DIT in any amount of detail, it is more complicated then just "INTERNET TRAFFIC IS MOSTLY BOTS NOW." The sources are not "bad," and if it is "blatantly false" then high quality sources should be easy to find to counter those we're using for the current definition. While we can and do use various sources to verify specific claims that don't specifically mention the dead internet theory (like the specific number of bots online), we are only able to say what the sources say about the DIT. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Fringe theories.

Finally, I don't think your statement is very civil in that it is not assuming good faith of others working on this article, specifically me, as I'm responsible for much of the content and the inclusion of many of the sources. I recommend reading up on those policies, as this appears to me to be rude, belittling, and a accusations of impropriety, specifically casting asperations that I'm POV pushing. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Every source you claim is recent enough is from before the rise of generative AI from the major companies pushing that technology. That alone is enough to require new sources.

Frankly, I don't care if you think I'm being rude. You've been shutting down every attempt by other editors to change this article despite the obviously outdated and non-factual nature of this article as it stands. I don't need to assume good faith because it's already apparent your goal here is to keep the label of "conspiracy theory" despite all evidence to the contrary. GermanTacos (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a gap in the literature, I recommend you do some research and submit it to peer-review in high quality publications. Once you get that published, we can then cite them here. Wikipedia is not the place for us to publish original research, the sources say what they say, you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

What was that about civility? At this point you're just circling back to claiming alternate sources (provided now, which you still claim don't exist or aren't viable). At this point it's obvious a RfC is needed because you have been the sole contributor to this article attempting to shut down any suggestion that it be changed. If you're truly confident that only 3-5 year old sources can be used to discuss an industry that has taken over most major companies in the past 2-3 itself, lets just put it to bed and let someone who is not you or me weigh in; all that is resulting from this is you accusing me of this, that and the other simply because I don't like an article being vastly inaccurate and outdated. 173.81.18.122 (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources provides above:

1. Forbes.com Yes, The Bots Really Are Taking Over The Internet
2. Malwarebytes Lab Hi, robot: Half of all internet traffic now automated
3. TechNewsWorld Bots Now Dominate the Web, and That’s a Problem
4. Thales News Release Artificial Intelligence fuels rise of hard-to-detect bots that now make up more than half of global internet traffic, according to the 2025 Imperva Bad Bot Report

Looking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I'm not sure where the Forbes.com article would fall, but I believe it is the only one included on the list. I'm not quite sure about the other three sources, but don't really think they're very high quality. Malwarebytes Lab includes "blog" in the URL, which does not inspire confidence. Importantly, after quickly skimming each and using "Ctrl+f" on then, as far as I can tell, None of these sources mention the Dead Internet Theory. Using the above articles to support claims if no other article is available might be fine, but you're trying to synthesize them in support for the theory itself.

I'm the primary contributor to this article, yes, but not the only one. I've been periodically looking for and reading sources that might challenge the ones we have on the definition, but so far, I've not seen that in the literature. The three sources I've listed are the three that most clearly define the DIT, but are far from the only ones I've included in this article. This discussion has been had many times, because the DIT goes viral and people want to change Wikipedia to endorse/advocate the theory, like advocates for other fringe theories. There are several editors who are watching this talk page, and I suspect many of them don't engage because this is tedious. The page is protected because the issue was discussed to death and IP editors were changing it despite the existing discussion/sources. The sources that are specific to the Dead Internet Theory say what they say, and Wikipedia is not the place for us to publish original research. If you want to start a RfC, go for it, but Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the opinions of editors do not over ride what the sources say. As it stands, we have a discussion below on this talk page where @Jibal states the "article is heavily slanted toward conspiratorial thinking, with a lack of critical voices." I can't really argue with this, the article does probably needs more skeptical/critical content, and the current article is a compromise. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't need to assume good faith

You do because Wikipedia policy requires it. It's clear that you aren't familiar with even the most basic Wikipedia policies ... please educate yourself. Jibal (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

He doesn't, read AGF yourself mate. You've cut half of his sentence. You only need to assume good faith unless clearly proven otherwise. You don't need to AGF _if the other person made it clear they have no good faith on the subject_. 95.197.176.185 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

And how do you prove lack of good faith? By e.g. observing citing Wikipedia rulesets without actually reading or understanding them. E.g. "Wikipedia is not a democracy", have you even read what it says? It says that it means that not the voting, but the consensus, is the key. Yet here there is no consensus. How does that make your statements any more valid by themselves than anyone else's? Are you administrators? Do you have superpowers? If not, any or all of statements you make are just opinions, unless proven. Saying that "there ain't enough sources", "the sources' quality is too low", etc. etc. is an opinion, it needs actual facts to prove them. Being published by predatory journal? Sure, low quality. Being posted on a barely-known site by a random person? Sure, no enough. Yet the amount of cherry-picking you guys go to defend your POV is just absurd here. You have an article clearly saying "a conspiracy theory (...) - but possibly not[?]" and you quote it yourself, yet you don't grasp the fact that the author is disputing the notion of considering the theory as nonsense.

I don't really care how DIT is called, and I don't care about this article that much. However, I do care about people like you running wild and self-righteously and single-handedly setting your personal ruleset extension on Wikipedia, hiding behind a pseudorational and pseudological rationales.

If you're fooling anyone, at this point that would be mostly yourselves. TBH, hard to consider you guys serious and not trolling intentionally at this point, hence the good faith assumption starts to fail for many, not only me. 95.197.176.185 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I do think at the very least calling it a conspiracy theory is wrong. Just "theory" or "often disputed theory", something along those lines would be much better. Heck even "conjecture" would be significantly better than "conspiracy theory" which is a very loaded term and does not apply broadly to people who maintain the view that "dead internet theory" is a thing. 88.129.69.131 (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

It's fine that you think that, however we have multiple sources that call it a conspiracy theory. If you disagree, you can publish your thoughts in a venue for original research and we can then consider how it balances with the other sources on the topic. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the real problem people are touching on is that the way most people seem to use the term "Dead Internet theory" today isn't the same as the original usage. I feel like most people using the term today are simply suggesting the basic idea that internet content will be (or currently is) created and consumed primarily by AIs/bots and not humans.

The way the article is written, it suggests when people use the term, they're conspiracy theorists that believe the government is using AI to control the masses or something, and that seems very far off. I would imagine that if you looked at many of the cited sources in this article, you would see that many people referencing "Dead Internet Theory" aren't talking about some government control conspiracy theory, just that AI is generating and consuming more and more content. I think the conspiracy theory elements should be put in a "history" or "origins" section to distinguish it from how people are actually using the term today, otherwise, this article appears to me to be quite misleading. Qualie (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

We don't have to imagine what the sources say in the article, the ones that clearly define the DIT describe it as a conspiracy theory, and there isn't one that makes the clear distinction you're describing. What you're describing would be an excellent topic for a systemic review paper, and I encourage anyone reading this to try and make such a paper and submit it to a journal. That said, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, and what you're describing would be a synthesis. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

There are already a number of sources in the article explicitly defining DIT that don't mention anything about anything like population control, and essentially only mention the notion that our internet content is or will "die" - i.e. primarily produced and consumed by non-humans. The second paragraph of "Expert Views" already cites some of these sources ([2], [17], [18], [19]) which don't include any mention of things like population control. I would also argue that [5] is included here as well.

Two other academic sources from a quick Google search suggesting this simplified definition (both on the first page of results, I didn't dig very far):

1. The Dead Internet Theory: A Survey on Artificial Interactions and the Future of Social Media

2. The ‘dead internet theory’ makes eerie claims about an AI-run web. The truth is more sinister

Also, I know Reddit isn't a reliable source, but in the absence of a well-conducted poll, you can see the most popularly upvoted comments include no mention of the more fringe conspiracy claims: Eli5: What is "Dead Internet Theory"? : r/explainlikeimfive

I agree that objectively quantifying this shift in usage precisely would be ideal, but I also think that publishing a whole research paper to change a Wikipedia description is a big ask, and I would argue that we have evidence from all the sources to make a small change. Just moving what's essentially being said in passing in the second paragraph of "Expert Views" to the top of the article alongside the more radical conspiracy claims would be less misleading. I still think most of the more radical conspiratory stuff should be moved to an "origin" or "history" section, but at least reflecting the shift in usage more prominently would be an improvement. Qualie (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I should mention that The Dead Internet Theory: A Survey on Artificial Interactions and the Future of Social Media does discuss the more conspiratorial elements of DIT in the "Theory Origins" section, however, in the Abstract and in the Introduction, and for the working definition for the purposes of the study, it offers a more simplified definition. This type of format is what I believe is more appropriate for the Wikipedia article as well. Qualie (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The issue we have is that sources don't all mention the conspiratorial part of the theory, but that doesn't mean they are stating it is not a conspiracy.

I've been watching the article The Dead Internet Theory: A Survey on Artificial Interactions and the Future of Social Media, but last I saw it was in pre-print. Now that it looks published, we need to look at the journal "Asian Journal of Research in Computer Science," as I'm not sure if it is predatory or not. So far, it looks like it passes the sniff test, so we can probably include it. The authors do specifically use the word "redefined," I wonder if they have seen my pleas in this talk page. I'm not sure how much one source over turns multiple others for the lede, but it can definitely be mentioned somewhere. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I just attempted to add the following text from The Dead Internet Theory: A Survey on Artificial Interactions and the Future of Social Media.

A 2025 article in the Asian Journal of Research in Computer Science surveying artificial intelligence use on social media sought to redifine the term in an academic context, spcifically stating:

"From the perspective of social media, the Dead Internet Theory (DIT) can be redefined as the idea that modern online platforms have transitioned from spaces of genuine human interaction to ecosystems dominated by artificial activity, primarily driven by bots, AI-generated content, and corporate algorithms."

This got flagged as using a potential predatory journal. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to note I created a discussion related to Asian Journal of Research in Computer Science on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Looking for guidance on including it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that quote sums it up nicely, and if you're going to use that source, it definitely makes sense to look at the credibility of the journal. Also, I would like to say that I'm not arguing against the term "conspiracy" as some other people are, just that I don't think the article is appropriately reflecting the shift in how people are using the term DIT.

It's a pretty new term/idea (and Google Trends suggests searches for DIT only really started to pick up in late 2023, likely spurred by the use of Generative AI on social media), so I don't want to partake in the discussion splitting hairs over whether it's appropriate to call it a conspiracy theory or not. The original usage I would say absolutely is, and I would say the more simplified version you're quoting above would still be as well, so I'm not disagreeing with calling it a "conspiracy theory". Qualie (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reliable source noticeboard says that it is a predatory journal. We are left with several published sources calling it a conspiracy theory, and a general vibe that the public is using the term in a new way. We don't have a source that clear source that gives us a definition or framework we can work with that clearly separates this, honestly we're skirting pretty close to original research as it by splitting it apart by saying "Some proponents of the theory accuse government agencies of using bots to manipulate public perception." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, pasting the source article into undetectable.ai yields a 95% AI score. Ironically, at the same time as making the source unreliable, it adds to the anecdotal evidence: the internet is so full of AI slop that even the articles about it being full of AI slop are themselves AI slop.

Unfortunately, as much as I feel like this article is wrong, we really need RS to say that. Amberkitten (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I can see there are some problems with the discrepancy between the article as is and what I see on YouTube views. Unfortunately, we can't be the ones to review the ontology here. I was really hoping the source in question would do that for us, but it is only a matter of time. Academia is publish or perish, I can't see this topic going unexplored for more then a few years. It already has entered the peer-reviewed literature after all. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, and that source likely being AI generated is very ironic for sure. My angle on of all this is just that while people are going to want to view this article to understand the origin and evidence for DIT, they will also be reading it to simply understand what people mean when they use the term DIT. I'm suggesting that those people would be misled by this article as it stands right now. I understand that an encyclopedia isn't a dictionary, but the contrast between what's written in the article and how "DIT" is actually being used is very apparent and seems to be what some people are reacting to (even if they're being uncharitable).

My suggestion, in the absence of more sources, would be featuring what's being said in the second paragraph of Expert Theory more prominently at the top of the article in some form or fashion, as we do still have multiple RS demonstrating an evolution of the use of the term in these particular contexts.

Otherwise though, I don't have more to add to the discussion right now. I think I've stated my opinion reasonably and I don't currently have any more sources to contribute, so I appreciate you taking the time to look into all of this. Qualie (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage I read through your sources and they're mostly conjecture. I'm not sure how you can have multiple people tell you that your article is biased and outdated, but you aggressively refuse to consider that they may have a point? Is that not intellectually dishonest to yourself and everyone reading your article? 74.109.39.200 (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

It isn't my article, I just have written a good bit of it. Over the past year, the article has averaged 6,404 daily views, from a purely numerical perspective, I'd expect several people to disagree with what is written. That said, if the article is biased and outdated, it should be really easy to find high quality sources. The article reflects the existing literature, and there is plenty of evidence I can point to in this thread that I'm actively looking for and considering new sources as they're presented. If you have an opinion on the topic, you should get it published in a reputable source and then we can discuss integrating it into the article. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s still a theory. But it is proving to have been mostly correct. It did overreach regarding the proposed intent and operative nature of the phenomenon, though. Senriam (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

There are two uses of the term "Dead Internet Theory" - one is conspiratorial in nature, the other is not (simply referring to the increasing prevalence of AI generated content online). Just make this clear in the introduction. That's it. 2A00:23C6:DC53:4501:EC64:5A88:E805:A476 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I have said this several times, but there is not a high quality source that defines two separate terms unambiguously. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's actually very important that this gets changed as soon as there's a usable source, the article in its current form can arguably be harmful. Because by describing it as a conspiracy theory, when the real-world usage has changed to refer to an observably true phenomenon (AI-generated content taking over the internet), that lends credence to conspiracy theories. JvJGavle (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The term hasn't completely changed usage, a parallel usage may have emerged. We need a source to document that, but I don't think it is going to be dramatic enough to allow the over write people rushing here after viewing the latest viral video are going to want. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

References

rephrasing the opening statement

Rephrasing the "The dead Internet theory is a conspiracy theory" into "The dead Internet theory is a theory mostly regarded as conspiracy theory" would alleviate the biggest problem of this article now: it speaks of CT and quotes articles describing it as a CT, yet the whole tone covers it as a rational theory, just one that doesn't fully hold and/or is biased by other aligned views. This has been discussed before here, and I think that simply rephrasing the opening sentence to be more accurate and to reflect the material better would help, while not moving POV or doing OR here.

Mind me, the idea of using 2ndary sources is to clearly say what others are claiming, and not to claim things when there is any reasonable doubt. If we assume Wiki has to stay neutral, changing statement that "X is Y" (which is suitable only for pure, undisputable facts) to "X is considered to be Y/X is claimed to be Y/X is defined as Y" etc. does seem like a correct step. 95.199.239.64 (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade applies here. The reliable sources we have refer to it as a conspiracy theory, and we don't have a good source that is refuting that. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

CASAS is about brevity and clarity. CASAS doesn't apply to differentiating between something that is and something that is widely but not univerally considered something (like effectiveness of drugs that have inconclusive trial result or research that has different possible conslusions, of which only some are widely accepted and some are fringe).

Also, I have to disagree on the "we don't have a good source to refute that". Many of the citations in the bottom (criticism) section actually highlight this - that DIT is salvageable, i.e. parts of it accurately reflect the reality, making it a theory instead of conspiracy theory. A quick net search provides those debate point quite freely, even from reputable sources. See https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/30/techscape-artificial-intelligence-bots-dead-internet-theory e.g. - it clearly says "it was a conspiracy thoery, but it is not strictly a conspiracy theory now". I'd call Guardian a reputable source on current mass media and sociology affairs, YMMV. 2A00:801:727:6C2:0:0:3A95:3488 (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not see that quote in the article. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage (FFS, do you have to use stylized writing in your signature to make it less legible?) :

If you "do not see that [quote] in the article", you have eye problems I assume. I haven't said it's a direct quote, I said the article says it (i.e. it's a paraphrase) - and it does.

>The theory wasn’t wrong – it was just too soon.

>Talking about a dead internet the summer before the release of ChatGPT is like the Guardian colleague who confidently declared, in the summer of 2016: “It’s been a mad rush of political news since the 2014 local elections, so it’s weird to think that there’s just Brexit and the US election and then everything will be quiet for the next few years.”

>In 2021, the internet felt dead because aggressive algorithmic curation was driving people to act like robots. In 2024, the opposite has happened: the robots are posting like people.

4th paragraph of the article etc. 95.196.14.53 (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Odd to accuse someone of having eye problems after stating you are struggling to read something. The article does not clearly say: "it was a conspiracy thoery, but it is not strictly a conspiracy theory now." You put that in quotation marks, and I do not see that quote in the article because you presented your paraphrase as a direct quote. I don't agree with your conclusion, in fact, despite the article you quote discussing how the "theory wasn’t wrong – it was just too soon", it does refer to "the 2021 version of the conspiracy theory," without ever giving a new definition or directly stating it isn't in fact a conspiracy theory. We do cite this source in the article already, specifically focusing on the "felt dead" part. Feeling dead and being dead are different statements though, and this is one source weighed against many. Often when I read these sources, I can tell the author likely at least glanced at the Wikipedia article. Until we have very clear high quality sources that say something unambiguous, we need to be cautious to avoid Circular reporting and a citogenesis incident. There is a cartoon on it by xkcd here. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Putting aside everything irrational and illogical you state, your very line of behaviour shows there's no point in discussing anything with you further. Saying "Until we have very clear high quality sources that say something unambiguous" when talking about cultural and/or internet phenomena, which is transient and ambiguous by definition, is a fallacy in itself, and you failing to understand that actually closes any gateway to a sensible discussion.

Seeing how you fare when other people try to communicate with you only confirms what I see now, that you're just mentally stuck on proving you are right whatever the cost, and against all reason, just appealing to higher and higher authorities. First "there is no reason nor rationale to". Then, when provided with reason and rationale, "there are no sources". Then, when provided with sources, "the sources are lacking, irrelevant and of low quality". You get prime outlets of culture and discussion? Not enough, "this is one source weighed against many". I could find like 5 articles from major media with statement with a cursory Google search. You already got some of those sources from other people. Well, what's the bar? How many do you need? What scientific journal needs to state the obvious for you to be able to change your effing mind? Just state the exact amount or boundary, because currently you're just raising the bar as it goes, as long as it allows your ego to do the "I'm rational, I have reasons" dance, even if it's obvious from outside you already failed.

"Often when I read these sources, I can tell the author likely at least glanced at the Wikipedia article." - God, I haven't imagined there are people who can seriously write something like that _about a columnist from Guardian writing about internet phenomena_... Hell, if you don't understand how quotes work, maybe you need some Caps Lock?

YES, HE PROBABLY EVEN READ THE ARTICLE. HE'S DEBATING THE CORE STATEMENT THAT IT'S STILL A CONSPIRACY THEORY, AIN'T THAT OBVIOUS?

Sorry, but I can no longer assume your good faith, because you're failing the litmus test of NPOV and a rational human being by a mile at this point. 95.197.176.185 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that one is not adding original research, one must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented."
• Wikipedia:Verifiability: "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people can check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources. Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."

This isn't Urban Dictionary, I'm actively trying to collect and add reliable sources to this article. We're not trying to find evidence for or against the theory here, we're trying to summarize and represent what reliable sources say about it. We have multiple extremely high quality sources that refer to the dead internet theory as a conspiracy theory, including a CRC Press book with a glossary entry for the Dead Internet Theory that explicitly defines it as a conspiracy theory. Two articles have come close to stating a new definition has spun out of it I believe, and I ran both through the reliable source noticeboard here and here. Both had issues, not the least of which is that both were likely written with a lot of help from generative AI. There is a reason you can't pull a direct quote from the guardian article that says it is not a conspiracy theory, and that is because it is not clearly stated. We can not imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the source. I can point to clear evidence that I'm actively trying to entertain changing the article if we can get sources, if you really think I'm being overly aggressive on this, feel free to open a RfC. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

>We can not imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the source.

We do have different definitions of "clearly" then. At this point, any further discussion would be either semantical or ontological. I appreciate the amount of work you did here, but at this point we will have to be in disagreement. I never proposed turning this article into UD entry, on the contrary. "No original research" doesn't mean "just direct citations and grammatical conjunctions are allowed", because maintaining NPOV requires being able to notice subtelties in the compelxity of ambiguous subjects and express those through careful and neutral wording. If a Jane Doe would be called "a bitch" by an article in a reliable source list, would you write "Jane Doe, a bitch" in the opening statement of a wiki article? Please ponder on that. There's a difference between calling a spade a spade, and calling a spade "a dirty spade" because you only found high-quality articles abouy dirty spades.

As to RfC, I was honestly thinking about it, but this is not my hill to fight on. I'm no longer an active wikipedian for about 15 years, even since wiki started hitting rock bottom for the first time. I reckon somebody will do an RfC here sooner or later if you don't change your approach, mate. I've seen how edit wars go, and this one somewhat escalates lately. If I were you, I'd step down myself, because a personal agenda always fails, even if the reasons for it are righteous (or self-righteous, YMMV). There's a difference between applying the truth and bending the truth. I detest mob rules, but Wikipedia is a mob writing experiment, and treating it otherwise always ultimately fails. 2A00:801:7A3:AB8A:0:0:4E51:FFA7 (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems that the "conspiracy theory" part is the claims that folks make that it's somehow deliberate and orchestrated - the "why" so to speak. But it seems that in this case, the conspiracy theory was based on a rising truth - the huge increase of bots and AI slop, spam etc... Given time, the part of the theory that is about the increasing crap and the destruction of value will only increase. I'm sure there will always be folks who just feel there has to be a conscious motivation behind it - some deliberate agency - not sure how one goes about differentiating, but yeah the Internet is kind of dying and the conspiracy theory did kind of predict it - right for the wrong reasons? DigitalSorceress (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

TBH there is a "deliberate agency" if it's done by corporations handling the bot/AI traffic for the sake of monetary gain. And that's not even secret, the very corporations themselves are open about it, be it Google, Microsoft or OpenAI, they present that as a rationale of high-level management decisions in their to-investor communications.

And yes, the "we don't care about people, we care about the money only while pretending to care about the people" is actually a tangible agenda.

The problem with the term "conspiracy theory" is that it implies that all theories based on conspiracy as the key element are automatically magical thinking and false. The problem is, history was actually shaped by conspiracies, whether one likes it or not. Wars and conflicts were always started by conspiracies and ended by conspiracies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_conspiracies (not exhaustive, this is only the list of well-known and well-verified ones) - This didn't change in XXI century at all. Now imagine what people said when someone pointed out those were orchestrated at the time they actually were - "you are insane, nobody would do that, that's fringe thinking".

Yet here we are. If you throw a 100-sided die, all results apart from one are "irrational and absurd" at the time you look at the die. Yet a moment before, all of them were equally probably. 95.196.14.53 (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theory" vs. "Theory": What's the Difference?

Slapping the word "conspiracy" on any non-approved theory essentially shits all over the credibility of that theory, and so I'm asking directly if Wikipedia's official stance on the "Dead Internet Theory" is that it is bogus, fake, the result of mentally-ill political extremists all conspiring to undermine the stringent level of control over the human mind that currently exists...

Or what?

I'm astounded when I contemplate the thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of eyes that land on this Article, and each and every one of them reads this as the very first and most important sentence of the entire Article:

The dead Internet theory is a conspiracy theory which asserts that since around 2016 the Internet has consisted mainly of bot activity and automatically generated content manipulated by algorithmic curation, as part of a coordinated and intentional effort to control the population and minimize organic human activity.

What's a "conspiracy theory", what is a "theory" and who decided that the "Dead Internet Theory" is a "conspiracy theory" and not simply just a "theory", that contained within the Article, seems to have quite a bit of evidence to support it's legitimacy. Who here at Wikipedia is interested in disparaging and denigrating humanity's best and brightest, that very small minority of minds that can see things that other people cannot, or do not, wish to see, and why is it that Wikipedia is interested in essentially shitting all over the best and brightest humanity has to offer, in order to... what? Silently assert that none of this "conspiracy theory" is true, and that everything is all transparent and everything is exactly as it appears to be? Or what, I wonder. Who here asserts that the Dead Internet Theory is completely and 100% discredited and "not-legitimate" and advocates in FAVOR of maintaining this word "conspiracy" as a means by which to maintain control over the narrative and deny any constructive change? Further, I wonder to what extent the AI/ChatGPT bots have not already taken over Wikipedia, and are currently enforcing their rules and policies over the human population, particularly to include this Article.2603:8082:DB40:2E:B4BF:95F4:23E:262B (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

There are several posts about this. We have multiple sources (some critical to passing Wikipedia:Verifiability) that use the term Conspiracy theory when describing the dead internet theory. There are a few sources that are ambiguous about it and seem to only use part of the theory, and a few that suggest that it may no longer be one or that it feels more real. We lack a good source that clearly states a new definition, and even if we had such a source it would need to be considered with the existing sources that describe it as a conspiracy theory. Our opinions on it are irrelevant, the sources are what matters, and they say what they say.

If you look at the statistics, most of this article is written by me. If you look at the talk page, I'm the one currently enforcing rules and policy (although if you look at the page statistics for the talk page here, there are 313 people watching it). I'm not an AI/ChatGPT. If any admin needs to check that, feel free. I have my own opinions on the DIT, and in fact the reason I'm interested in it at all is because it tangentially was/is related to some of my professional work. I have specifically suggested some routes of research on this talk page for anyone who is interested in trying to publish in a reliable source. I'm confident we will see something new as this term has already entered the academic literature, and I struggle to think a buzz word like this won't get investigated by some CS researcher. I was excited to see one recently, but it turned out to be in an unreliable journal and likely written mostly with AI, you can see the saga above in this talk page. Until we get a good source that says otherwise, we are left with the sources we have. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I was looking at this topic for quite a while and I found some, I think, reliable sources that are academic publications. Here's a list of 4 that I found, along with my comment on each. I'm listing them here so that someone can edit the article or maybe add these references. I tried not to repeat sources already used in the article on this talk page, but I might have missed one (i'm sorry if I did).

1. The Dead Internet Theory: A Survey on Artificial Interactions and the Future of Social Media (arXiv, many authors; Jan 2025); This is a peer-reviewed survey (accepted for publication and posted on the arXiv) that looks at the origins, terminology and implications of DIT. The authors never use the word "conspiracy" at all, and they don't frame DIT as one either. It explains that DIT claims that "much of today’s internet [...], is dominated by non‑human activity [and] AI‑generated content" and studies how bots, algorithmic content generation and engagement metrics have weakened real human interaction.
2. Artificial Influencers and the Dead Internet Theory (Springer, Yoshija Walter; Feb 2024). Published in AI & Society journal, this article looks at the rise of AI‑generated “virtual influencers” and connects that to DIT. The author doesn't call it a conspiracy theory, instead describing DIT as the theory "that the internet is predominantly populated by AI‑generated content". They argue that generative AI has made what used to be a speculative idea observable today, and they what that means for authenticity, digital labor, and online trust. I found this quote really interesting: "Ten years ago, the theory used to be rather speculative, but with the wake of generative AI, it can now be observed first-hand, and it highlights a disturbing trend: the blurring lines between human and AI-driven interactions."
3. The Dead Internet Theory: Investigating the Rise of AI-Generated Content and Bot Dominance in Cyberspace (Pakistan Journal of Engineering, Technology and Science; many authors; June 2024). This paper looks at whether the internet appears "dead" because of the rise of automated bots and AI. The abstract says the theory describes a virtual world becoming lifeless as “automated creatures and AI‑generated content” take over. The introduction also says that asking if the internet is dead isn't a metaphor but a recognition that AI‑generated content and bots are increasingly wide-spreading. Not only does this article not label this theory as a conspiracy theory, it actually says that it should not be considered as such (if I read it right): "Another research states that a startling 47.4% of all internet traffic in 2022 turned out to be bots, according to Imperva's Bad Bot Report. We converse and share in what seems like a busy virtual town square, yet over half of the people there are merely robots. This introduces the controversial dead internet theory into our everyday online experiences, removing it from the domain of conspiracies."
4. Between the Self and Signal: The Dead Internet & a Crisis of Perception (OCAD University Major Research Project; 2025). This graduate research project studies how synthetic media and algorithmic systems affect human perception. The glossary defines DIT as "The belief that the internet is primarily populated by automated bots and synthetic content rather than genuine human activity." The introduction argues that the dead internet is not a distant dystopia, but something real and happening now, warning that bots and synthetic actors damage trust and contribute to an epistemic crisis. The author writes that recent advances in generative AI have "transformed what is termed the Dead Internet Theory from a fringe conspiracy into a legitimate area of academic inquiry as synthetic activity increasingly dominates online spaces."

Wcalenieja (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

(EDIT: Obviously just after posting the message, I noticed that the second source I found (Artificial Influencers and the Dead Internet Theory) is already used in the article. But as far as I can see, it is only used in this cluster of 6 sources and in the other place in the cluster of 4 sources, as well, so I think it's worth checking out.) Wcalenieja (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

To respond:

1. I was watching this source in the arXiv for a while, but it was published in Asian Journal of Research in Computer Science. We discuss it above, and I tried to incorporate it, but it had issues. See discussion at Reliable source noticeboard here. In short, it is likely mostly AI written and published in a predatory journal.

2. As you noted, this is included. We could try to flush things out a bit using this, but there isn't a ton of meat on this. The article is in what the journal calls the "Curmudgeon Corner" and is a "a short opinionated column."

3. Pakistan Journal of Engineering Technology and Science looks predatory on first glance. We will have to go to Reliable source noticeboard for it, created the post here. We will see what is said.

4. I've read this actually, there are a few masters theses out there that mention the DIT actually. I don't want to make any firm accusations against the author, but it feels like some of the sources/writing from this Wikipedia article might have "rubbed off" on this thesis, and I question the methods a bit. That said, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources states "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." I don't believe this has risen to the point of significant scholarly influence. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• After taking the article The Dead Internet Theory: Investigating the Rise of AI-Generated Content and Bot Dominance in Cyberspace to the reliable source notice board, the general conclusion is that there isn't evidence the journal is predatory, but the article itself seems to be mostly written by AI. @Headbomb stated the "paper certainly isn't RS."

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Link to the archived Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion on Pakistan Journal of Engineering Technology and Science article titled The Dead Internet Theory: Investigating the Rise of AI-Generated Content and Bot Dominance in Cyberspace here.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:31, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Long Term Effects/Consequences

The Article would be improved if there could be found and included, content that talks about the human response to the software dominated conversational environment. The question boils down to: "Will humanity submit to non-human control of their speech, or will they rebel against it?" My opinion/theory is that humans will adapt to this relatively new conversational system, and limit their human-to-human conversations to only forbidden topics, language and ideas, meaning that the AI will censor things like "racism" and only allow non-racist conversations, and so humans will rebel, adapt and focus on talking about nothing BUT racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc... ideas in their IRL conversations as an "unintended consequence" of centralized control over their speech, and therefore their minds. All the things the bots won't let you talk about, all the words the bots won't let you say, that will become the ONLY things human want to talk about because they'd rather speak to other humans using forbidden language and ideas, vs. staying within mandated social boundaries and only talking to non-sentient "AI" software, inhuman (and Satanic) bots.72.180.111.79 (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Should there be a separate article discussing simply the hypothetical, general concept of the internet becoming obsolete? Perhaps, “Death of the Internet".

This would be different from the “Dead Internet theory” article which not only claims that the internet is already effectively dead but also makes very specific claims as to how its death came about, such as assertions of governments and corporations intentionally curating what users see online as a way to control the population, which is just one of a multitude of different ways the internet could die. Also, there are a number of Wikipedia articles that discuss hypothetical scenarios or widespread perceptions that, while aren’t necessarily true yet, are believed by many people to be true (or are seen as a serious matter of concern) or could possibly become true at some point. Examples of such articles would be “American decline” or “Human Extinction”. Those articles aren’t framed as conspiracy theories that can be traced to a certain individual or group nor do they make a single, main claim about how those events would come about. Rather, they’re framed in a broad way that mentions several possible interpretations and causes that could cause those events to transpire.

Basically what I’m asking is whether it would make sense to have a separate article about the “Death of the Internet” as a general topic to distinguish it from the more specific “Dead internet theory” which is a very specific idea that makes very specific claims. The Death of the Internet as a matter of general concern has become widespread due to the rise of LLMs and Generative AI which means that concerns of the internet one day “dying” are no longer fringe or overblown. A separate article would also resolve some of the disagreements I’ve seen above of people debating whether this article should still describe the dead internet theory as a “conspiracy” or not. MoJoBroBro (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoJoBroBro There should not be such a separate article because the content of that article would be wp:original research. Original research is forbidden on Wikipedia. Content must be wp:verifiable using sources. The sources must be wp:reliable sources. —Alalch E. 02:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Per above, anything is possible if sources exist. I don't think there are nearly enough for what you're describing. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Potential source for Evidence section

The SEO firm Graphite made a study on the prevalence of AI-generated text on the web over time, which was covered by several reliable sources. Criteria for selection:

We need a representative sample of English-language articles on the web. To do so, we randomly select 65k URLs from CommonCrawl, and confirm that each is in English, has an article schema markup, is at least 100 words, has a publish date between January 2020 and May 2025, and is an article or listicle as classified by the Graphite page type classifier.

According to Graphite, AI content makes up roughly 50% of texts selected using these criteria as of May 2025, and this has plateaued since May 2024.

Seems relevant & some commentators have highlighted the link to DIT, though admittedly I couldn't find a reliable source that references DIT explicitly. Amberkitten (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't find a reliable source that references DIT explicitly. Until we have that reliable source, this is interesting but not something we can really include. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material. We're not trying to find evidence for or against the theory here, we're trying to summarize and represent what reliable sources say about it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Time to update this page

Clearly we are on the precipice of the accessible "internet" being majority fabricated by bot and AI generated content. It's a bit unusual to be so protective in claiming the Dead Internet Theory as conspiracy, when all web browsers use AI and machine learning to provide filtered information. The internet is not a reliable source of information. Accessing the internet to gain knowledge is now plundered with the responsibility of fact checking across multiple sources, hence rendering the internet as a Dead source for reliable information. Perhaps this was always the case considering the reliability of news and media sources, but now more than ever the bot and AI generated content has poisoned the field condition. Update this page - Remove the Conspiracy claim.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/10/13/ohanian-and-altman-warn-of-dead-internet-theory-what-is-it-and-how-is-ai-making-it-happen/

https://www.zdnet.com/article/youre-reading-more-ai-generated-content-than-you-think/

https://www.semrush.com/blog/semrush-ai-overviews-study/

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-ai-overviews-clicks/558608/

2600:1700:B47:D000:6179:3CD1:5BDF:610C (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)