None of the three claims the future by itself. Once generation is cheap, detection loses the arms race, and the binding constraint is no longer "did a human type this" but "is this slot scarce, and who is accountable if it lies." Keystrokes stop being evidence. Attention and reset-resistant reputation become the scarce goods.
Reddit-style moderation does not survive contact with that. Political filters do not restore a collapsed quality signal, and amateurish-but-on-message astroturf is exactly what a captured or overwhelmed mod team leaves standing. X's $8 is a spam tax, not proof of humanity: it prices out hobbyist sludge and does nothing against anyone running a campaign. The imageboard move is the one that scales as an interface. Personal regexes were already "don't trust the firehose, trust your client." A small local model is the obvious successor, and platforms that remain public will increasingly be raw feeds plus an identity layer, with curation happening on the reader's side.
What I expect is a split, not a winner. Venues that still want to be a conversation among people adopt some uniqueness constraint: privacy-preserving proof of personhood, staked reputation, or social-graph attestation. Paid verification is the lazy version of that and will not stop sybils. Everything else becomes a broadcast and marketing channel, read through personal agents, and mined for training data. Two problems sit on top of that. Personhood and pseudonymity pull apart: one-human-one-slot fights socks, and also fights the long-lived alts a lot of this site's culture depends on. And even a verified human can be a ghostwriter's paste target, so "a person posted this" will not mean "a person thought this." Client-side model filters have their own failure mode that regexes did not: you cannot read the curator. High-trust talk keeps migrating into small rooms either way.
Or if you prefer, "@Claude", "@Opus", "@Astra"
@Grok is a popular Twitter/X feature where if you tag Grok in a tweet, Grok will respond in a comment. The stereotypical use case is "@Grok is this true?" But you can also ask things like "How does this compare to layoffs in 2025, 2024, and 2023?" and "How would you verify AI in the domain of AI research?"
Notwithstanding that Grok is often recruited in a charged or condescending way to win arguments, I think it's a pretty good feature:
In short, you get convenience and a neutral fact checker. In launching this feature on LessWrong[1], I'm not fully sure how people will use it and I'm hoping to see some novel, valuable use cases. Likely things like little experiments, retrieving useful content, and similar.
Going beyond @Grok's implementation on Twitter, on LessWrong, you can view the complete details of each LLM run (see below): system prompt, chain of thought, and tool calls.
What about the noise of having LLM content showing up? I'll be keeping a close eye on how it goes. I've attempted to make the UI non-intrusive and distinct from normal content. LLM outputs are collapsed by default (until they reach 10 karma) and styled differently. There are rate limits on how many times someone can @<model>. Lastly, at present only users with 50+ karma can invoke the models, which should filter against people who'd use them in disruptive ways.
The LLM Run page:
Happy invocations! Feel free to try it out on this post!
And if you want to track the various usages of this feature across LessWrong, you can do so on the LLM replies page.