Is the internet about to "die" again?

The internet is about to "die" again.

This time, the "cause of death" is the inundation of content.

According to Fortune, in an interview in October this year, Alexis Ohanian, the co - founder of Reddit, said that the theory of "the death of the internet" is no longer a sensational conspiracy theory:

"All of you have proven that most of the content on the internet nowadays is 'dead' - that's the so - called 'death of the internet' theory, right? Whether it's the operations of bots, the products of quasi - artificial intelligence, or the'slop' on LinkedIn... Real human activities, such as live - stream audiences and live - stream content, are becoming increasingly precious in today's attention economy."

As the spiritual leader of the "front page of the internet", Alexis Ohanian's remarks have attracted the attention of many insiders. Moreover, the recent views of Sam Altman, an iconic figure in the AI industry, have also become the focus of the spotlight:

I've never taken the "death of the internet" theory seriously, but nowadays, it seems that there are indeed many Twitter accounts driven by large language models running.

—— Personal tweet of Sam Altman, September 4, 2025

The remarks of industry leaders have immediately sparked a great response. From overseas to China, from Reddit's discussion boards to official account articles, various viewpoints have emerged, but there still seems to be room for discussion on the conclusion.

So, is the internet really "dead" this time, or is it still "alive"?

The Flood of AIGC

Based solely on subjective impressions, it's difficult to reach a consensus on how widespread AI - generated low - quality content has become. If we remove the "low - quality" connotation, it's not an overstatement to describe the penetration of AIGC content as "all - pervasive" nowadays.

Take the simplest example. On video websites that claim to be "youth - oriented", skits and cross - talk shows that are re - dubbed using voice - cloning tools and second - created through editing are still a source of hot topics with millions of views as of 2025. Even though the quality of these videos varies, their large quantity and timeliness in following current events are their advantages.

AI - generated skit (screenshot)

Over time, although the images and voices of the older - generation folk art masters represented by Teacher Zhao Lirong still remain in our memories, with the continuous emergence of AIGC second - creations and the constant iteration of familiar performance scenes paired with fast - food gags, it's really hard to say whether the original punchlines represented by "Imperial Jade Liquid Wine" can still maintain their former value and national recognition.

When the flood of AI completely submerges the entire internet and engulfs everyone, including Generation Z, Generation Y, and the internet natives of Generation Alpha and Beta, the boundary between UGC and AIGC is completely blurred. Does it still make sense to measure the vitality of the internet by the traditional standard of "the proportion of real human activities"?

Obviously, to answer this question, in addition to the perspective of passive information - receiving audiences, the views of AI + UGC creators who actively create content using various means (including AI technology, of course) are also worth considering.

Interviewee:

Enigma, former head of the internet column of Popular Software, a senior media person

Creator of the independent TRPG Replay program

Let me cut to the chase and state the conclusion first:

In my opinion, at least for now, whether AIGC is the poison or the honey of the internet still depends on how the user uses it; at least in my hands, AIGC has a pretty good taste.

As a professional who has worked in the field of writing for more than 20 years, I'm well aware of the charm of this classic medium, the difficulty of making it engaging in today's new environment, and the futility of trying to reverse the situation single - handedly (commonly known as transformation). However, with AIGC tools, this once unrealistic dream has at least come half true:

For example, in the hearts of many writers, there is always a story that represents "self - realization", but most of us can't find the right way to fully present it. However, with AIGC tools, the content that is beyond our reach, such as illustrations, BGM, voice - overs, and dynamic images, can be generated one by one in a form close to our wishes. Then, as creators, all we need to do is open the editing software, import these materials according to our script in mind, edit, compress, and finally produce a video. It may not be perfect, but as long as we choose the right way of expression from the start, at least 70% of the "real creative dream" that has become our heart - knot can be realized.

Yes, although there is a lot of fluff, this technological form that allows "everyone to be a director" is indeed more beneficial than harmful for creators who "can tell stories".

By the way, even if it can only achieve 70% of the goal, it's already quite engaging for like - minded audiences. I uploaded a prologue of a story on Bilibili, with a total length of 20 minutes and a total view count of about 150,000. Considering that I have less than 8,000 followers, this result should say something.

After all, at least in my personal view, the value of AIGC for creators today is roughly equivalent to the significance of tin - tube paints for painters in the 19th century. With this painting material that can be squeezed out at any time for painting, painters at that time walked out of the studio and engaged in on - site creation in the natural light and colors, directly giving birth to Impressionism, the pioneer of modern painting.

Are tin - tube paints important? Of course, they are. But no matter how important they are, they can't replace Monet to directly paint Water Lilies.

The same principle applies to AIGC. As an efficient tool that can, to a certain extent, transform screenwriters into full - stack directors, as long as we still hold the "dominant power", even if wrapped in the shell of AIGC, UGC content still has the right to stand firm and stabilize the internet like a keel.

This is not the arrogant imagination of carbon - based beings. In fact, for today's AI whose working principle has not deviated from "rumination", keeping "real human activities" alive is not only an ethical obligation for the created but also the core way to maintain vitality at the technical level.

The Collapse of the Perpetual Motion Machine

Initially, the first groups that trained AI models using internet data achieved impressive results. Then, a continuous stream of funds poured in, driving the entire AI industry to take off. However, facing the problem of "data shortage", many subsequent AI companies began to use synthetic data generated by AI to relieve this crisis. But is this "self - sufficient" circular model of training AI models with AIGC content really as reliable as it seems?

In mid - 2024, a paper on the cover of Nature gave an answer:

GARBAGE OUT! (Get out, garbage! Another way of translating it is: Garbage in, garbage out.)

The team behind this vulgar - titled paper is from research institutions such as the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford. According to their experiments, training with synthetic data can easily lead to the deterioration of the generation results of AI models, and it happens much faster than expected.

According to the analysis of these researchers, under the influence of comprehensive factors such as information loss, model design, and data used in the learning process, the AIGC content generated by AI models will continuously produce errors and gradually accumulate to pollute the subsequent training data sets, directly causing the subsequently trained models to further misunderstand reality and ultimately leading to the collapse of the AI models.

Although this is a result that takes a long - term recursive cycle to form, considering that companies including Microsoft and Google are using synthetic data to train models, it is undoubtedly necessary to deploy some countermeasures in time to prevent today's artificial intelligence from becoming artificial stupidity in the near future.

The C2PA (Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity), which was put on the agenda as early as 2021, has returned to the public eye. Adobe said that it has integrated corresponding marks in products such as Photoshop and Firefly, and Microsoft also claims that it will apply this standard in its AI platform and related products to ensure that the content generated by AI has traceable source information. In addition, many mainstream model - related manufacturers are also promoting the development of AI digital watermark technology (such as Google's SynthID), and at the same time, auxiliary detection tools such as turnitin and Copyleaks are gradually becoming practical.

On the other hand, laws and regulations regarding the identification of AI - generated content are also being introduced in many countries and regions around the world. Many mainstream social media platforms are also requiring users to add prominent statements and markings when posting AIGC content that may cause misunderstandings. It can be said that the phased relevant measures to clarify the relationship between UGC and AIGC are already on the way.

But then, a new problem seems to be in front of us:

If, in the future, the further - improved AIGC gets rid of the dilemma of "self - producing and self - training, getting dumber with more training" and almost perfectly replaces the mainstream UGC content on the internet, and our familiar channels, blogs, and other SNS media are completely filled with "the operations of bots and the products of quasi - artificial intelligence". If things develop to this point, will the theory of "the death of the internet" become a reality?

Not Something New

When it comes to "public entertainment in the Victorian era", many friends' first reaction may be various theaters and stage performances, such as magic shows, circuses, sports events, and various social gatherings. However, starting from the mid - 19th century, there was indeed a rather novel form of family entertainment at that time, which still involves a certain amount of technology from today's perspective: Stereoscopic View Cards.

To put it simply, this is a device that fixes two photos with almost the same content but slightly different angles on a special frame. When the user looks through the eyepiece on the frame, the slightly different images formed by the left and right eyes will overlap, creating a 3D visual effect through the lens. This device, which has been around for a century and a half without a power source, has basically the same principle as today's VR headsets.

In short, this device that can create a "sense of presence" without much effort quickly won the favor of the middle class at that time, and then attracted the attention of the aristocracy and the working class. It soon developed into one of the popular entertainment activities of the Victorian - era public. Multinational companies represented by the Keystone View Company were extremely prosperous, with related businesses operating from London to Tokyo.

The question is, why has this classic form of entertainment left no trace today? The reason is simple - the dynamic image art presented by the Lumière brothers at the end of the 19th century completely revolutionized the entire visual entertainment ecosystem. "The Stereoscopic View Cards are dead, but long live the movies."

Ultimately, the reshuffle of industries caused by technological iteration has never stopped in the past two centuries, and the internet is no exception. Just as the rise of sound movies eliminated the on - site bands of silent movies but gave birth to the new industry of film scoring, the market gaps left by obsolete technologies are destined to be filled by new opportunities brought by new technologies in a short period of time.

Therefore, if AIGC completely defeats traditional UGC creators in the content arena in the future, there is no need to worry too much. As long as the market still meets the needs of "people", new opportunities, new tracks, and new trends will never be absent.

Defining "the death of the internet" by the "human content in the content" actually follows the same classic rhetoric as the "death of rock and roll":

You can say that the spirit of rebellion is no longer pure, but as this spirit of "going against the grain" has integrated into the mainstream and shaken the traditional puritan - style music industry, is it still necessary for us to worry about the initial "life and death" in the face of this evolutionary change?

The same goes for AIGC. Since the internet is constantly evolving like a living organism and AI itself is also a part of the technology driving the evolution of the internet, why can't we, just as we accepted hyperlinks, BBS, streaming media, and SNS networks, pierce the bubble of impetuous illusions and re - examine this new change in the internet?

The internet driven purely by carbon - based beings is dead, long live the internet jointly built by carbon - based and silicon - based beings.

Simatu Lin, a special author of the Tencent Research Institute

This article is from the WeChat official account "Tencent Research Institute" (ID: cyberlawrc), written by Simatu Lin, and published by 36Kr with permission.