Talk:Dead Internet theory

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

The article should be changed

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
We have multiple sources that use the term "Conspiracy theory" when describing the DIT. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's simply your opinion. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. -- Jibal (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every source used toward the assumption of 'conspiracy theory' is vastly outdated to the current model of the internet.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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."[1]

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

References

  1. ^ Muzumdar, Prathamesh; Cheemalapati, Sumanth; RamiReddy, Srikanth Reddy; Singh, Kuldeep; Kurian, George; Muley, Apoorva (2025). "The Dead Internet Theory: A Survey on Artificial Interactions and the Future of Social Media". Asian Journal of Research in Computer Science. 18 (1): 67–73. doi:10.9734/ajrcos/2025/v18i1549. Retrieved 25 August 2025.

Elon Musk section WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, and fails WP:V

[edit]

Why is there an entire section on Musk's acquisition of Twitter—especially given that it cites 7 sources, only one of which, something called "Cybernews", even mentions Dead Internet Theory? Musk debated how many Twitter users were bots, and—at least according to the sources cited—Twitter claimed it was less than 5% and Musk cited reports that it was up to 15%. Logically, this would hardly support DIT, a conspiracy theory that the internet is "mainly" made up of material from bots, etc. Indeed the sole source that mentions DIT talks about estimates that 50-80% of material is generated by bots—so even Musk's most extreme claims about Twitter wouldn't appear to be particularly good evidence of the theory.

But that's only the tip of the iceberg. Worst of all, nowhere in the sole cited source that references DIT is there anything resembling or anything supporting the Wikivoice assertion that "Believers in the dead Internet theory have pointed to this incident as evidence."

In other words: this entire section appears to be 6 sources generated by WP:OR in an effort to buttress an unsourced assertion that abjectly fails WP:V.

I won't hazard a guess as to how the instant section ended up in our article, but clearly it violates our bare-minimum encyclopedic standards. For that, and all the reasons above, I am removing it, but by all means, feel free to discuss on the Talk page—and please ping me if you do so. Thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this was my inclusion or not, I'd have to dig into the past revisions and it isn't likely to be worth doing. Early in this pages history, we were working with a significant body of Grey literature, YouTube videos, and the original user generated content from which the Dead Internet Theory originated. We were struggling to find reliable sources that discussed the whole theory as it was portrayed within the grey literature, which is not as much of a problem now. I suspect this section originated in that grey literature, and acceptable sources were found to support the independent claims after the fact. If the text does not stand up to scrutiny and no third party high quality source states this, then I'm not going to argue with the removal. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of subject

[edit]

Our article's subject is variously capitalized as "dead internet theory", "Dead Internet Theory", and "dead Internet theory". The first makes sense, and one could even make an argument for the second, but the third has no apparent justification, as "internet" is not a proper noun and has no other valid reason to be capitalized on its own. The first "mainstream" article, which appeared in The Atlantic, used "dead-internet theory", which strikes me as most likely correct, although I'm not in any way an expert grammarian.

While I'm ultimately agnostic (other than only capitalizing "internet"), it seems we ought to at least pick one and be consistent—and I welcome any and all input! Ekpyros (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internet is capitalized on the page for Internet. There is a conversation on Talk:Internet regarding capitalization. Until there is a change in that page, I'm defaulting to use the capitalization they are using on it, if only to be consistent between Wikipedia articles. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

slant

[edit]

From the lead: the literature on the subject does not support the full theory

That's a radical understatement. The whole article is heavily slanted toward conspiratorial thinking, with a lack of critical voices. A discussion of LLMs is filler to try to make this seem more credible, but the mere existence of ChatGPT et. al. is not "evidence" in support of this "theory". -- Jibal (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by your statement. There is a section detailing "Expert views" on the topic which contains several critical voices. What would you change, based on sources? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

rephrasing the opening statement

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2025

[edit]

Please add the following text as a new subsection under the existing ===SocialAI=== section.

Aspect: AI-Only Social Media

[edit]

Another app, Aspect: AI-Only Social Media, was launched in June 2024 and gained over 300,000 downloads per Sensor Tower data. On this platform, the user is the only human, and every other account is an AI bot designed to interact with them, creating a social media experience that mirrors the central tenets of the dead Internet theory.[1] Tyondavis994 (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Smith, Chris (2024-09-24). "In this bizarre new social media app, every user other than you is AI". BGR. Retrieved 2025-09-13.