This reminds me about something that I did as a test a few days ago. (Referred to here)
Scaffolding for a properly written article? @A_Freeman ?
And yes, perhaps the question if AI should be used at all should be had but I believe that in the same way as these computers, the resources used to create them, mining, etc are satanic but are now a "neccesary evil" AI-usage for explaining things /helping to write things is the same way.
Here's the prompt (the text that I wrote AI). It's very quickly put together and the saying garbate in - garbate out applies.
The concept of "sheeple" is rooted in the idea that a group blindly follows a dominant narrative without critical thought. But what happens when the counter-narrative itself becomes an echo chamber? When those rejecting the "mainstream" just start following a different script, they become their own version of sheeple—just with a different shepherd.
Are we seeing signs of this happening today? I believe clearly, yes. The scene is wildly different than in 2001 or 1995.
--
I'd like to flesh out the last part considerably bringing up how the critical thinker / "conspiracy theory" scene looked like in 1995 and 2001 and how it's grown and mushroomed and grown branches in the craziest RAND firehose directions etc today with mind control ? programs liek flat earth etc etc and a huge huge mess it is today
Here is what AI (ChatGPT) gave me:-
The concept of "sheeple"—a term used to describe people who unquestioningly follow the dominant narrative—has long been a staple of critical thought. But what happens when the so-called counter-narrative, initially born out of skepticism, becomes its own rigid ideology? When rejecting the "mainstream" transforms into merely following a different script, those who prided themselves on being independent thinkers risk becoming their own version of sheeple, just with a different shepherd.
This phenomenon has accelerated dramatically over the past few decades. If we look at the landscape of critical thought and conspiracy culture in 1995, it was a very different scene. The internet was in its infancy, and alternative narratives spread largely through books, magazines, local meetups, and the occasional late-night AM radio show like Art Bell’s Coast to Coast AM. The dominant conspiracies revolved around topics like government overreach (e.g., Waco, Ruby Ridge, the militia movement), secret societies (the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission), UFO cover-ups, and a skepticism of corporate and governmental power. These theories were often grounded in real historical precedents of deception, such as MKUltra, COINTELPRO, and Iran-Contra, which gave them a foundation of plausibility.
By 2001, with the rise of the internet, this subculture had exploded in size. The events of 9/11 created a major turning point. The so-called “9/11 Truth” movement brought together a wide range of voices—engineers, political dissidents, alternative media figures—who questioned the official narrative. This era saw the birth of the modern, internet-fueled conspiracy ecosystem, where information was more accessible but also harder to verify. Figures like Alex Jones gained prominence, and the conversation began shifting from intellectual skepticism to an increasingly performative, emotionally charged battleground.
Fast-forward to today, and the landscape has splintered in ways that would have been unthinkable in earlier decades. The democratization of information, while a powerful tool, has led to an environment where anyone can create and disseminate narratives, regardless of their validity. What was once a community grounded in critical thought has, in many cases, devolved into an ever-expanding firehose of contradictory, often bizarre theories. RAND Corporation’s concept of the “firehose of falsehood” describes this perfectly—overwhelming people with so many conflicting narratives that they either disengage entirely or become radicalized into believing the most outlandish claims.
Consider the rise of flat Earth theory—something virtually nonexistent in critical circles before social media algorithms started amplifying it. Once a fringe idea, it has gained an inexplicable foothold, largely because of how modern information ecosystems function. Similarly, we see a growing number of “mind control” narratives, some of which are built on real government programs (like MKUltra) but have since spiraled into exaggerated, cartoonish paranoia where even basic logic is abandoned. Instead of engaging in genuine inquiry, many in the alternative media sphere now operate within closed loops, where dissenting views are dismissed as “controlled opposition” and skepticism of anything becomes a badge of honor, regardless of its merit.
The result? A paradox where those who claim to be the most critical thinkers are often the most susceptible to ideological capture. Instead of rejecting propaganda, they merely adopt a different flavor of it. Instead of questioning everything, they unquestioningly accept the narratives that align with their pre-existing biases.
In 1995 or 2001, questioning authority required effort—digging through documents, reading multiple sources, and engaging in real-world discussions. Today, the ease of access to alternative information paradoxically enables laziness; one can simply pick a pre-packaged counter-narrative and subscribe to it wholesale, with little critical examination. The same group that once prided itself on “thinking for themselves” is now as vulnerable to manipulation as those they criticize.
The challenge now is to reclaim the spirit of true skepticism—not cynicism, not blind contrarianism, but genuine critical thinking. That means evaluating claims based on evidence, being willing to change one’s mind, and resisting the allure of simplistic, emotionally charged narratives, whether mainstream or alternative. Without this, the cycle of ideological capture will continue, with each new wave of supposed independent thinkers becoming just another flock of sheeple, following a different shepherd.