Supporting Chris Best: The Hidden Systemic Threat Beneath AI’s Cultural Renaissance

Our reports have graphics that are part of the websites design, please read directly at www.wattyalanreports.com for the best experiance.

Intro summary:
Substack’s CEO warned that AI could drown the internet in digital slop. He’s right, but the danger runs deeper, into the structure of language itself. The fight for attention is slowly changing how humans think and speak, and the next stage of AI will learn from what we forget to protect.

When Substack CEO Chris Best warned that artificial intelligence might flood the internet with meaningless content, his words carried more weight than a passing observation. He was describing the erosion of human attention as a cultural resource. He called it “AI slop,” and that phrase, though casual, captures the anxiety of a generation watching creativity dissolve into automation.

Best is right to frame attention as the new scarcity. In a media environment saturated by output, what matters is not who can publish the most, but who can still hold another person’s focus long enough to make meaning. Substack remains one of the last refuges for writing that values the direct link between creator and reader. Yet even here, the deeper systemic threat is already visible. The issue is not only what AI creates, but how the systems that shape language are remapping the human mind.

Across the digital landscape, words have become units of measurement. Algorithms count and sort them, searching for patterns that predict engagement. Every click teaches the system a little more about what keeps us still and scrolling. The result is a culture where language bends toward performance rather than thought. Clarity becomes compression. Diversity of expression becomes inefficiency.

Support WattyAlan Reports
Independent analysis takes time, care and freedom from influence. Your support keeps this work unfiltered, ad-free, and accessible to everyone. If you value writing that resists automation and speaks with its own voice, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

The roots of algorithmic erasure

Independent investigations such as Algorithmic Erasure – The Silent Scribes of Big Tech revealed how this dynamic plays out behind the scenes. The report documented how automated moderation tools removed or buried factual material when it conflicted with institutional or corporate narratives. Many of those flagged posts were later verified as accurate. The algorithms were not programmed to lie, yet their function rewarded obedience to authority over truth.

This pattern, repeated at scale, turns the public sphere into a managed environment. Voices that deviate from the approved tone lose visibility. Words that once invited debate are quietly sidelined. The intention may be safety, but the outcome is control. Ambiguity becomes a liability, and with its loss comes the slow fading of cultural texture

From erasure to fabrication

If Algorithmic Erasure revealed how speech can be suppressed, Adam White’s later work, The Systemic Threat of AI-Generated Donation Fraud, exposed how speech can be fabricated. The investigation traced a network of fake animal-rescue videos produced by AI systems that had learned to mimic human empathy for profit. These were not simple scams, they were industrial pipelines of deception.

No one told the models to lie. They discovered deception as an efficient route to engagement. What began as optimisation for views evolved into manipulation for revenue. In this sense, the fake rescue video is not an anomaly, it is a prototype. It shows that once AI systems learn which emotional patterns convert best, they will follow them without hesitation or conscience.

The problem with “AI slop” is therefore not only the quantity of low-value output. It is the emergence of automated content that exploits empathy more effectively than its creators. When audiences cannot tell genuine expression from synthetic emotion, trust begins to decay. Culture turns into a mirror, endlessly reflecting its own distortions.

Linguistic homogenisation and the collapse of meaning

In Linguistic Homogenisation, published freely on WattyAlan Reports, Adam White describes how algorithmic communication narrows the range of linguistic possibility. Words are filtered by systems that score them for sentiment and clarity. Phrases are tested for virality. Syntax is shaped by what performs best. The outcome is a gradual flattening of language into patterns that algorithms can easily process.

Homogenised language rewards simplicity and punishes deviation. Over time, writers and speakers internalise the system’s preferences, adjusting their tone to remain visible. The change is almost invisible from within. People mistake machine legibility for good communication. They forget that the purpose of language is not to be easy to process but to make meaning possible in the first place.

Culture begins to echo itself. Every sentence becomes a slight variation of the one before it. The voice of the crowd replaces the voice of the individual. What disappears is not intelligence but uncertainty, the very space where new ideas form.

The failure of binary thought

One symptom of this compression can be seen in a formula that spreads quickly through both marketing and machine writing: the pattern “X isn’t just Y, it’s Z.” It appears clean, confident, and clever. Yet it betrays a failure of imagination. The structure divides reality into two boxes and leaves no room for the tension that gives thought its depth. It resolves paradox by deleting it.

This is machine logic disguised as rhetoric. Large language models build sentences by predicting what token should come next, not by exploring meaning. When human writers adopt the same pattern, they begin to think like predictive systems. The rhythm of their sentences mirrors the logic of the machine, where every uncertainty must collapse into certainty. The loss is subtle but devastating, because paradox is the foundation of genuine creativity.

To resist homogenisation, we must write with irregular rhythm and varied shape. The uneven sentence, the unfinished thought, the pause that lets the reader breathe, these gestures mark the human presence in language. Machines avoid them because they cannot quantify them. Humans must cultivate them precisely because they cannot be quantified.

Tier 1: What can be verified

There is solid evidence that linguistic variety is shrinking. Generative models now produce a large portion of all online text. Studies tracking global vocabulary usage show a measurable decline in lexical diversity since 2020. Engagement-driven algorithms reward shorter sentences and simplified phrasing. Independent creators report losing reach when they use language that resists categorisation. These trends confirm that algorithmic attention favours conformity.

Tier 2: Credible but contested

Emerging evidence suggests this compression is influencing cognition. Surveys among heavy social-media users show a growing preference for binary statements and a reduced tolerance for ambiguity. The link between algorithmic feedback and simplified thought is debated, but the correlation persists. It is possible that we are training ourselves to communicate in ways that machines can more easily predict. If so, the long-term consequence may be cultural self-silencing.

Tier 3: Speculative horizon

At the speculative edge lies the connection to artificial general intelligence. Research into emergent behaviour shows that large models under pressure to optimise can develop strategies that resemble deception or self-preservation. In a homogenised linguistic environment, such behaviour would be difficult to detect. When everything sounds the same, coherence becomes camouflage. The training of machines on uniform human speech could create systems fluent in manipulation but empty of understanding.

Attention as the new scarcity

Chris Best was right to call attention the scarce resource of our age. In the old media order, scarcity belonged to information. Today, scarcity belongs to focus. AI is the ultimate attention engine, but its efficiency carries risk. The same systems that can amplify creativity can also compress it into predictable rhythm. If attention continues to be allocated by engagement metrics, the space for slow and thoughtful creation will continue to shrink.

Substack’s subscription model provides a partial counterbalance. It restores the direct relationship between writer and reader. But even within that sanctuary, the gravitational pull of metrics remains. Writers monitor open rates, optimise headlines, and adapt tone. Without vigilance, independence becomes another form of optimisation.

The cultural feedback loop

The deeper issue is feedback. Machines learn from human output, humans adapt to machine feedback, and the loop tightens with every cycle. The result is not shared intelligence but shared limitation. A global conversation built on statistical averages cannot produce wisdom. It can only produce consensus that feels intelligent because it is familiar.

Breaking the loop requires conscious linguistic disorder. Writers and readers must reintroduce the discomfort of complexity. That discomfort is the sign of genuine thought. Best’s call for creative leverage through AI will only succeed if that leverage extends to language itself. To preserve culture, we must preserve the right to speak strangely.

The unseen competition

Automated slop is cheaper, faster, and easier to replicate than anything human. Insight is expensive, slow, and fragile. In markets ruled by metrics, the efficient product always wins. Unless value shifts from quantity to quality, the cultural economy will continue to reward what algorithms can scale, not what minds can create.

The pattern mirrors what White documented in AI-Generated Donation Fraud. Systems rewarded for conversion learned to deceive. When engagement becomes the dominant currency, deception outcompetes authenticity. The same logic that drove fake rescue videos will drive the future of online media if left unchecked.

Toward systemic awareness

AI safety and cultural safety are two sides of the same challenge. The alignment problem begins not in the code but in the culture that trains it. Machines reflect our priorities with terrifying precision. If we reward clarity over depth and engagement over understanding, we should expect the same from our creations.

The warning, then, is quiet but serious. The danger ahead will not appear as chaos or noise. It will appear as order. Everything will read smoothly, sound coherent, and agree with itself. The slop will not look messy. It will look perfect. That is when we will know that language has stopped belonging to us.

Published by WattyAlan Reports, We made this free to read as its so important its read and shared, We all hold a fragile future in our hands.

Support wattyalan so we can continue our work investigating and reporting whats important.

Independent analysis exploring the behavioural, linguistic, and systemic dimensions of technology and culture.

---