AI Content Is Swamping The Internet: How It Impacts Critical Thinking

Authored by Autumn Spredemann via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A never-ending flood of content generated by artificial intelligence is reshaping the internet and the way people engage with information faster than ever.

From news summaries to social media posts to academic research, the sheer volume of machine-assisted materials has been correlated with a spike in “cognitive offloading” – a phenomenon in which people outsource critical thinking and verification to automated systems.

A 2025 analysis of how AI tools affect cognitive offloading showed a “significant negative correlation” between frequent use of AI tools and the ability to think critically in people across age groups and educational backgrounds. The researchers at the SBS Swiss Business School found that younger age groups exhibited a higher amount of dependence on AI models and lower critical thinking scores.

What’s more troubling is a Pangram/YouGov study in May that found only 55 percent of participants, all of whom were Gen Zers aged 18 to 28, were able to identify fake or misleading AI-generated material. That number is lower in older age groups, which means half or fewer of adults over the age of 28 were confident in their ability to spot AI content online.

“AI-generated posts and comments can distort public perception, especially when volume is mistaken for credibility,” Javi Pérez, an editor of AI-assisted consumer education websites, told The Epoch Times.

“If a user sees dozens of similar posts about a product, trend, political claim, health issue, or financial topic, they may assume there is broad agreement.”

‘Confident Sameness’

Pérez said consumers need to beware as AI content increases the volume of what he called “confident sameness” online.

“Many articles and posts now repeat similar structures, similar advice, and similar phrasing. For casual readers, this can create the impression that a topic has more consensus or certainty than it really does, because they keep seeing the same ideas repeated across many sources,” Pérez said.

“The risk is that people stop knowing which content has been checked. In fields like finance, health, law, education, or news, readers need to know whether claims were reviewed against primary sources, updated recently, and edited by someone accountable.”

AI strategy consultant Armand Cucciniello III told The Epoch Times that AI-generated content is changing not only how we consume information, but also how quickly we process and trust it.

“We’re moving from deliberate reading toward rapid skimming of polished summaries, commentary, short-form videos, and AI-assisted content designed for speed and engagement,” he said.

As someone who has worked in the “U.S. national security landscape,” Cucciniello said one of his biggest concerns is that AI systems “can unintentionally amplify large volumes of inaccurate or deliberately manipulated content simply through repetition and scale.”

He also believes the high volume of AI-generated content is creating real pressure on public trust.

“When readers encounter nearly identical phrasing or interpretations across multiple sources, it’s natural to question whether the information was independently reported or simply repackaged,” he said.

Carl Stroud, a public relations expert and chief storyteller at the Smoking Gun Agency, has also witnessed AI content take a toll on the public.

“The fundamental audience need has not changed: People want to trust what they are reading,” Stroud told The Epoch Times. “What has changed is how much harder that judgment has become.

“AI-generated content, aggregation, and low-quality slop have made the information environment noisier, flatter, and more confusing, so audiences are now trying to work out whether they are reading original reporting, rehashed content, or something that should never have been published in the first place.”

Beyond social media and academia, few industries have been hit as hard with AI-generated misinformation as the news. Stroud, who has spent two decades within UK media circles, editing, and journalism, said he’s seeing the AI content churn create fatigue among readers searching for accurate information.

“Fatigue is dangerous because when people feel overwhelmed, they either disengage or become easier to mislead,” he said.

Losing Touch

Ashutosh Khulbe, founder of RawPickAI, tests AI tools for a living – about three to four new ones every week.

“What I notice most in my corner of the internet is that everything sounds the same now. Like, eerily the same,” he told The Epoch Times. “I’d guess 70 to 80 [percent] of ‘best AI tools’ articles are AI-generated at this point.

“It creates this weird feedback loop where AI writes reviews based on what other AI already wrote, readers assume there’s a consensus, and the actual experience of using these tools gets buried.”

He said he tested one writing tool that had hundreds of positive reviews online yet was unusable at the free tier. “You couldn’t even finish a paragraph before hitting the limit. But good luck finding that info in a Google search,” he said.

Khulbe is especially bothered by the way information distortion is affecting the public.

“AI content skews relentlessly positive because it’s trained on marketing pages and affiliate reviews. Nobody’s training models on ‘I tried this for two weeks, and it sucked.’ So the negative signal just disappears from the internet,” he said.

The effects of the AI content boom can now be seen in what some are calling “AI psychosis,” or a disconnect from reality. While not a clinical diagnosis, the term has become a popular catch-all phrase to describe when AI reinforces an unusual, fixed, or even delusional perception of something in the real world.

People with mental health conditions could be predisposed to developing “AI psychosis,” but it’s also not limited to that population, according to Dr. Ragy Girgis, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University and the New York State Psychiatric Institute.

“The phenomenon of AI psychosis is quantitatively new and could be very dangerous, but qualitatively it’s very similar to what’s been happening for decades now since the advent of the internet,” Girgis said during an interview with the National Academy of Medicine in March.