AI might actually be right.

// Two things.

It's been a couple of weeks since the launch of the lunch club in Bristol and it's nice to look back on that with a bit more clarity as the euphoria settles down and realise that I met a few new people that day and it was just really nice to socialise with a common theme of being in the same room and having something 'new' (with added sparkles) to talk about.

What was nice was that there was a lot of people all coming to the event in the same boat - people who didn't know anyone and who were wandering in to a room where they didn't know anyone.

I relish those opportunities and I really like going to places where I don't know anyone but I also understand that these situations are not comfortable for everyone - its a quirk of my personality that I like strange places.

This thought has been rumbling around my head this week - the thought of this, the fact that HUMANS went into a room by themselves and met other humans and the fact that AI on social media is making us sound more and more alike.

Online, with the increased usage of AI to generate social media posts, to create 'engaging' content - everyone is starting to sound alike, moving the median line of opinion slowly to the centre line - neither right nor left and no-one with a strong opinion either way - online, we're becoming 'commentators' rather than opinion led.

The funny thing is though, AI might actually be right in a way that you wouldn't expect.

// Sameness

We're forever told that AI is dragging us to some median line but what if that is what real life is?

Those that tell us that we need to have opinions, share your thoughts and bring value are all playing towards an algorithmic bias - they want to perform on a social platform that is rewarding them for those thoughts, values or opinions.

When we all stepped into the room in Bristol - there was a commonality, a leveller because we were all being brought together to share in one common interest. I saw it first hand..

There are people who come into the fold of You Are the Media who have never been to an event in real life and they are easy to spot - they wander into the event looking for Mark as he's the figurehead and they've listened to him, followed him and ultimately, found their way to the event because of him - there are lots of people who do that - they want to meet him and get to know him so they wander in, say hello and then you see their face as the sudden realisation is, there are tons of people here and Marks now gone to say hello to someone else.

It's at that moment that most networking groups fail - it's where business events crash and burn and you're left to fight for yourself. That's why traditional networking has a bad rep but I can attest (and I'm pretty sure I could find a million more) that those who turn up to a You Are the Media event seek out those faces and bring them into circles to meet people.

I once turned up to my first lunch club and did exactly the same thing as everyone else - I walked in, looked for Mark - got a glowing warm welcome and then once it all kicked off, I had to make my way to find others. I was happy with that (obviously) but I felt the same sense of trepidation as you're left to meet others alone.

In Bristol, I could see this happen to Chris Lubas (he won't mind me saying it) - Mark said hello and then suddenly, Chris was left to find others to talk to - I grabbed him and brought him over to meet with the others I was standing with.

Liam Toms was in that group - him and Chris started chatting and almost immediately, found a commonality in live gigs, performing music and talk around gigging (both as a band and as a fan) made the place feel a whole lot more comfortable.

// Commonness

Talking to others about things you're interested in, allowing others to express themselves and hearing those thoughts is the great leveller - we proved it with Powerpoint Nites about a month ago - a bunch of people all showing up to chat about their interests and their passions - no pitch, no sell and no ego.

AI is pushing us towards that.

With every post pushing us towards the median, we're able to associate with it more and more and we're able to identify with it - there is nothing wrong with that, it's what we do in society - trying to find common ground with everyone we meet, except AI is doing it on a massive scale.

Watching Louis Theroux's Manosphere documentary on Netflix gives you an insight into what happens when we stray completely away from the median and we become extreme for the sake of 'clicks' and 'likes' - the boys playing to the algorithm to generate interest in a way which generates more and more engagement will only push you closer and closer to the edges, not the middle.

We're all so worried about AI taking over our positions as thought leaders that people campaign for tighter regulations and rules around it's use but it's nowhere near as bad as what is happening on the fringes - all those places where engagement farming and clickbait reside.

// Socials

Being in that room with Chris, Liam, Mark and around 30-40 others meant we all had one commonality - which we shared on social media afterwards - we'd all been to that event together - something that couldn't be replicated by AI but it was something that made us unique.

I very much doubt that anyone who snapped their camera or filmed any part of that day paired it with an AI written post - the two don't go hand in hand.

What is the point in sharing a photo, a video or an experience if you're going to outsource it to AI - and that's the point.

AI is doing it's job well - it's keeping those who might game the system for the sake of engagement and clicks into places where they are less likely to offend, it's dragging them into the centre ground with bland, sameness and into a place where no-one is offended.

Left to their own devices - and I believe those who are dragged to the fringes of society are lazy - mainly because they are not open to the view that they might be wrong and therefore, they need to occupy a different space to the extreme they are considering, these people are employing ChatGPT and any other LLM to write their content in the need to maintain relevance - but AI is doing our job for us.

Now, before I start to tarnish all those who use ChatGPT to write their social content as right wing (or left wing) - there are others who use LLM's to generate content because they want that shortcut, they want to meet their required 'social quota' for posts or they're just devoid of ideas (and thats ok) - I'm not saying all those who use ChatGPT are highly opinionated.

But what if, just what if, there are those that would stray into questionable topics for the sake of engagement and they're being dragged into the median because they're using ChatGPT?

// Human First

All of this feels a little jumbled now - so I want to try and clarify my thoughts....

Sharing middle of the road content brings us closer together as we're all looking for the same thing - divisive and opinionated content drags us closer to the edges of society and therefore, closer to the algorithmic performance that we need to occupy when we're trying to grow our socials.

So, isn't AI doing a good job?

Nothing - and I mean nothing, will replace the human based content, the feelings, the experiences that we all share because those are all personal to us - no-one will have experienced Bristol like I did and when I share my perspective, others are interested - either because they were there or because they weren't and they want to know more.

That's the secret sauce of socials - personal over performative.

All the rest, all that ChatGPT stuff - that's ok too because it's not offending anyone and if it means it brings people closer to you without the need to stray to the edges, isn't that ok too?

Social media is the online version of lunch club - when you connect with someone you know, you say hi and that's it - you're connected. What you do with that connection is up to you and there are ways to generate more and more interest in yourself - you can either reach out personally and find out about their audience or... or you could change into a chicken outfit and stand on a table.. both will garner interest.. it's your choice which one you do.

Does that make sense? Or have I rambled a bit too much?

That's far too muddled to have been written by AI - isn't that the point?