The layperson doesn't read briefings so that doesn't matter.
For the third (?) time: the same abilities can be applied
in other contexts. Seriously, this has already been directly addressed at least twice, not to mention how it doesn't make any goddamn sense as a response anyway.
Imagine there was a batch of tainted vegetables sold. Someone bought some, cooked them into a stew, but thankfully their guests noticed the stew looked off and didn't eat it.
Your response here is equivalent to saying, "people noticed it in the stew, and most people don't eat stew anyway, so there's no risk". Ignoring the fact that
those tainted vegetables will be in other things as well: the stew just brought it to our attention.
Having outright false information is less likely to convince people, hence you do it by giving legit information but fail to mention the facts that would disagree with the narrative you're pushing (AI can't really do that).
I couldn't give less of a shit about your spurious effort to conflate actual falsehood with standard bias. We're discussing one and not the other right now. Recap:
* balance of actual falsehood is not 90/10 or anywhere near a hypothetical "saturation point".
* Adding more misinfo increases the likelihood that any reader will consume that instead of non-misinfo.
*
standard bias in reporting is completely irrelevant to this.
You're are always going to have people that believe irrational things and are super gullible. AI isn't going to change that.
Indeed: it's just going to encourage them to engage in manipulated behaviours and voting patterns, which is precisely the danger we're talking about.
You don't seem to be willing or able to actually engage with what's being said here. Every time it's just a kneejerk dismissal or repeat of some already-addressed gripe or distraction, or else a facile attempt to shift the conversation onto something else like bias or Rittenhouse. You're not considering or engaging with anything.