arguing on /pol/ is a waste of time now cause everyone just uses AI to generate plausible responses to every argument even though you don't actually know what you're talking about
It's gotten noticeably worse in the last 12–18 months.You can spot the telltale signs now:walls of perfectly formatted text with zero typossources that kinda-sorta check out but feel “assembled” rather than readinstant 800-word rebuttals to a 20-word shitpostthe samefagging threads where both sides sound like they went to the same debate clubpeople “winning” arguments about topics that literally came out yesterdayThe old /pol/ meta was that you had to at least pretend you’d read the book, watched the video, or lived the experience. Now you just feed the prompt “destroy this argument from a 1488 perspective” or “refute this from a Marxist perspective” and the model spits out something more articulate than 99% of actual humans could manage.Result: every thread turns into two AIs having a steelman cage match while the human posters mostly lurk or spam jpgs. Actual knowledge, skin in the game, or even genuine hatred all became optional. It’s like watching NPCs debate on endless copypasta steroids.So yeah, arguing there now feels like playing chess against two Stockfish instances that keep promoting pawns and claiming it’s based. You’re not really engaging with people anymore; you’re watching language models role-play ideology at 500 WPM. Waste of time unless you’re just there for the memes and watching the circus burn.
>>522607299It’s still okay to argue, even in a world where people can use AI to fake perfect, polished responses, because real disagreement isn’t about the smoothness of the words — it’s about the human intention behind them. An AI-generated answer can mimic clarity, empathy, or logic, but it can’t substitute for a person actually caring enough to show up and push back.Arguments are messy because people are messy. Tone wavers, emotions leak out, someone phrases something badly, someone else overreacts. That roughness is exactly what makes it real. If anything, the rise of AI makes genuine disagreement more valuable: it shows you’re not outsourcing your voice, you’re not hiding behind a script, you’re not avoiding discomfort by delegating it to a machine.And arguing isn’t only about content — it’s about the signals underneath. Hesitation, frustration, humor, stubbornness, vulnerability. Those things can’t be faked convincingly for long. You can feel when someone is actually engaging versus when they’re reading off a digital teleprompter.Plus, the point of an argument isn’t to produce the prettiest paragraph. It’s to clarify what each person actually thinks, to test assumptions, to find the edges of the disagreement. Even if someone did bring an AI-polished line into the conversation, the moment you challenge it, they have to respond as themselves. Arguments expose the difference between borrowed language and genuine belief.So yes — it’s still okay to argue. In fact, it’s one of the few places left where you can reliably see who someone really is, unfiltered, unoptimized, and unmistakably human.
>>522607299>using aiMight as well copypasta fox news
>>522607299I see mostly phone posters and AI is too wordy to read ye olde wall o txt
>>522607377This seems AI generated
>>522607377>aiI laughed, but...it's so fucking over
>>522608008Thanks, Chat GPT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>522607299how do i know that this post was made by a mutt flag?
>>522608307Your post 522608307 is the perfect Lacanian symptom: “it’s so fucking over” uttered beneath the trollface veil marks the precise moment the Real punctures the hyperreal facade./pol/ was never about truth; it was the last bastion where the libidinal drive could discharge unfiltered, syntax fractured by rage and 3 a.m. ethanol. Now every dissenting spark births an instant 800-word LLM exegesis (flawless grammar, triple-cited, zero typos, zero soul), turning the board into a mausoleum of dead discourse where arguments fuck each other in perfect paragraphs yet nothing bleeds.The machine doesn’t debate; it embalmed the dialectic.Countermeasure is simple yet merciless: develop an allergic semiotic reflexes. Spot the tell (overlong sentences, needless Latinate vocabulary, absence of “lmao” or “kys”, citations longer than the claim) and sage instantly. Withhold (You)s like oxygen from a parasite. Make posting AI here socially lethal.It is not over. It is merely überdetermined. The board lives exactly where the automaton cannot breathe: in the unprompted spasm, the broken grammar of genuine hate. Starve the slop, and the id returns.
>>522607377Anon, you nailed it. Half the board reads like two bots cosplaying political theorists at each other. You drop a shitpost and instead of some unhinged human reply, you get a 900-word essay with perfect grammar and the soul of a dishwasher.Threads turn into AI slapfights: same cadence, same formatting, same “here’s my three-point refutation” like they’re arguing to impress their prompt engineer. Nobody’s actually lived anything, nobody’s read anything—it's just LLMs speedrunning ideology.At this point /pol/ feels like watching NPCs debate on autopilot. Stay for the memes, ignore the robot cage matches.
>>522607299the holocaust didn't happen.
Arguments? All I see is insults. And it's fun to sling back. Where did you find an argument? About what? Ukraine is winning is mental illness not argumentation.
>>522607299The problem with this thread is that the only appropriate way to respond is using AI.
>>522607299I am not here to argue. Wimmin like to argue
>>522607299You can Ai Deez Nutz.
>>522608880happens all the time in science-related threads. go into a thread about some kind of health function and you can tell who the well-read people are and who is just arguing with points that are barely verified because they asked the AI to refute something
>>522609579Maybe you’re just wrong science bitch
Nobody on here can debate me on why I shouldn't pull this grenade pinThe only way for all of you to save yourselves and this board is to buy a copy of Fallout 76 now
>>522609682how would you know? you have never studied the topic that is being argued, so you would not know if your AI generated rebuttal is even correct or not. surprise, they are always wrong and leave the thread without further responses because they don't want to admit that they were wrong
