Sid Venkataramakrishnan, a digital sociologist and former reporter for the Financial Times, takes a deep dive into the current hype surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) and the burgeoning market of AI-related newsletters. The ongoing debate about whether AI represents a genuine technological revolution or merely a fleeting bubble has reached a fever pitch. Just last month, OpenAI's innovative creation sparked widespread attention on social media platform X, with CEO Sam Altman heralding it as a significant step forward for society and a means of democratizing content creationsomething that renowned animator Hayao Miyazaki and his contemporaries traditionally controlled tightly.

However, a growing body of evidence suggests that we might be ensnared in what can be described as a hype cycle, characterized by the emergence of what some critics refer to as second-order slop or slopaganda. This term encapsulates the deluge of newsletters and threads on X that seem to express uncritical admiration for every press release and product announcement made by AI companies, seemingly in pursuit of lucrative advertising revenue.

The AI sectors active engagement with a cottage industry of self-styled educators and influencers raises serious questions about the authenticity of the hype surrounding these products. Critics argue that this might be an indication that the so-called emperor has no clothes, presenting a faade of innovation that may not truly exist. With numerous AI-themed newsletters flooding the market, two notable names have consistently appeared in advertisements: Superhuman AI, founded by Zain Kahn, and The Rundown, created by Rowan Cheung. Both claim to boast over a million subscribers, a remarkable feat considering that the Financial Times had approximately 1.6 million newsletter subscribers as of February.

A closer examination of the content within these newsletters reveals a troubling trend. Rather than providing substantive tech reporting or insightful analysis, they often present an echo chamber of techno-euphoria that lacks critical perspective. Many of the newsletters resemble summaries that AI tools like ChatGPT could easily generate, stripped of any nuanced understanding of the topics at hand.

Both Kahn and Cheung appear to be capitalizing on this trend; in a 2023 interview, Kahn disclosed that advertising spots on Superhuman generate six figures a month. The cost for a 150-character feature in the newsletter is a staggering $1,899. Meanwhile, The Rundown has yet to publicly share its revenue details. However, the promotional power wielded by these newsletters is evident in Cheungs high-profile 35-minute interview with tech mogul Mark Zuckerberg from earlier this year, which has drawn criticism for its lack of challenging questions, reminiscent of the conversational style popularized by Joe Rogan.

When Venkataramakrishnan reached out for commentary from Kahn and Cheung, neither responded. In contrast, Ed Zitron, a writer, public relations expert, and vocal critic of the so-called slop phenomena, shared his blunt opinion on the AI newsletter industry. He described these creations as content built for people who dont really read or listen or know stuff, asserting that what we are witnessing is simply propaganda in disguise. Zitron further expressed skepticism over the claimed subscriber counts, suggesting that its relatively easy to inflate numbers by purchasing email lists.

This sentiment is echoed by a data scientist working within one of the so-called Magnificent Seven tech companies, who remarked, These are basically content slop on the internet and adding very little upside on content value. The comparison to Indian regurgitation news portals that have gamified search engine optimization and marketing strategies illustrates the degree to which these newsletters might be contributing to the noise rather than offering genuine insight.

But newsletters represent only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to slopaganda. The social media platform X is saturated with AI influencers who are willing to promote AI products often for minimal fees, with the lowest rates starting around $40 for a retweet. Many of these influencers claim to be based in Bangladesh, although there are also accounts that purport to operate out of Australia or Europe. Alarmingly, many of these promotions do not disclose compensation for their endorsements, potentially contravening X's paid partnership policies.

Suspicion also surrounds the high follower counts seen on these platforms. In numerous instances, the same individuals appear to be running multiple accounts, promoting identical content under different names, raising concerns about authenticity. A landing page for a smaller newsletter, known as 80/20 AI, explicitly lists three X profiles with varying names all promoting the same material, which is in violation of the platform's guidelines concerning authentic content. When Venkataramakrishnan inquired about this practice, 80/20s founder Alamin Hossain responded evasively before going silent on further communication. X did not provide any further comment on whether these accounts had breached community standards.

Despite these ethical concerns, AI companies seem more than willing to finance dubious promotional strategies to market their products. One particular case involves APOB AI, a generic image generation service that offers a Google document containing suggested posts to replicate in multiple languages across diverse platforms. One such tweet promotes the idea that an AI-generated Instagram influencer can generate upwards of $5,000 per month, though the claim is misleading as the images used are not original but sourced from elsewhere. This specific tweet has garnered over 420,000 views since its posting last October.

When Venkataramakrishnan reached out to the account regarding the image sourcing, he was informed that it was indeed AI-generated, but upon presenting evidence, the account owner then claimed he had merely collected the images from other accounts. A reverse image search revealed that yet another AI page had utilized the same photographs, indicating a troubling trend of appropriation within this space.

Ultimately, slopaganda illustrates a paradox where the symbolism of AI does not represent a singular innovation but rather a cyclical phenomenonan Ouroboros, symbolizing the self-consuming nature of the industry. In this cycle, AI firms, venture capitalists, and a cadre of content creators and marketing experts perpetuate a narrative that may be more hype than reality. As Zitron poignantly notes, When these people pop up around an industry, it should be a sign that this is a worrisome bubble or that there are people actively looking to exploit it.