The mind virus: Why you should care whether you read AI-generated content

SubscribeSign in

The mind virus: Why you should care whether you read AI-generated content<br>How AI broke proof-of-thought and created a horde of fools

Juliette Ryan<br>Jul 31, 2026

14

19

Share

My husband has a friend from high school who time has turned into more of an acquaintance. Let’s call him Tom. Tom would consider himself rather erudite and has strong political views, which he isn’t afraid to express on Facebook. But in the last year, a strange pattern emerged. My husband noticed Tom’s Facebook posts were becoming a little longer and far more witty. His arguments were landing like metronomic jabs to a speed bag and he would often round out each post with a flourishing one-line punch.<br>Having been active on Substack for over six months, I am a little more attuned to the prose of AI than my unsuspecting husband, and was immediately suspicious. Peering over his shoulder one day, I quickly read Tom’s latest rant and knew instantly it was AI-generated. (I got my husband to run it through Pangram to verify, and it was indeed 100% AI generated.)<br>With great delicacy — the kind warranted when you’re about to call into question the erudition of one who values such a thing — my husband messaged Tom and asked him if he used AI to write his posts. Tom wrote back vehemently defending himself, saying that the thoughts were all his own and that he only used AI for “polish.”<br>“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”<br>— Anonymous (not Mark Twain)

Well not-Mark Twain,1 I’m about to try.<br>For 3000 years, a piece of writing was evidence of human thought , and the fluency of that writing was a loose proxy for the quality (or at least degree) of thought that went into it. For the most part, good writing meant there was a mind behind the scenes that had done a lot of work.<br>AI broke writing as proof-of-thought.<br>The mind virus

When you read something that easily flows through your synapses, the ease with which you process those words is taken as a signal that the work itself is true — that you can trust the person who wrote it knew what they were talking about.2<br>We implicitly grant fluency a higher degree of trust.<br>Which isn’t a problem, as long as the bulk of fluent writing out there on the internet is true. 3<br>And up until about six years ago, this was the case — for the most part, when you came across a fluent piece of writing, it suggested that a mind behind it understood the subject.4<br>Before AI, fluent writing was difficult to create. Someone, somewhere in the chain had to sit down and concoct a coherent and flowing piece of writing using their very own thoughts. It took immense time and effort. If you wanted to spread false information, you had to be a good writer to do it. Or you had to be a person with the means to pay for a good writer.<br>Sure, ghost writers have existed since writing was invented. State propaganda and polished lies have been spread throughout history. But the malicious actors doing so were always filtered by cost. Misinformation was spread intentionally. It was impossible to unintentionally spread convincing misinformation because nobody could unintentionally create convincing writing! This meant that the bulk of good writing was written by people who truly understood what they were writing about .<br>After all, to truly understand something, you need to be able to explain it. And to explain it, you need to have assimilated extensive knowledge and the ability to synthesise it — to recognise where and how to build bridges over that dense knowledge so that they can be walked by the reader. Before AI, fluent writing signalled that someone had laboured for hours trying to collapse three-dimensional thought into a two-dimensional stream of words that could convey that understanding to another person. Good writing meant good thinking. Or it used to.<br>AI broke this. Fluency can now be manufactured, at scale. At the heart of the mind virus lies a broken signal: fluency is no longer a measure of thought.<br>A fluent piece of writing can still mean that many hours of thought went into it. It can also mean a one-line prompt did.5<br>Awareness doesn’t immunise you

Knowing you possess this fluency bias doesn’t deactivate it.6 Even a motivated, aware reader still feels the pull of fluent AI-generated prose because the calibration is sub-cognitive. It’s simply a trained reflex to believe or trust seemingly coherent writing.7<br>The sheer volume of AI-generated content now makes it almost impossible to escape. The more you read AI-generated content, the more you tend to believe AI-generated content, slowly recalibrating your sense of what truth sounds like towards AI prose.<br>The burden of proof

AI didn’t just break proof-of-thought, it obliterated the effort that used to be tied to fluency. Anyone with an internet connection and $30 per month can now forge proof-of-thought and manufacture superficially beautiful...