AI content is everywhere on social media, especially LinkedIn

Perception of LinkedIn and AI “slop”

• Many see LinkedIn as “AI‑slopped wasteland” or “dumpster fire” that was already full of corporate platitudes; LLMs mainly multiplied the volume, not changed the character.
• Feed is described as unusable: obvious AI posts, emoji‑laden “thought leadership,” contrived moral stories, and AI responses even in comments.
• Some say AI content is actually an improvement over prior corporate/bro hustle posts.

Broader Internet and “Dead Internet” Feel

• Users report similar slop on Reddit, X, YouTube, Instagram, Medium, Substack, and in product/service reviews.
• Sense that bots, engagement farms, and LLM‑generated text/images are crowding out human signal and making participation less appealing.
• A “dead internet theory” vibe: people assume many others online are bots or AI.

LLM Style Bleeding into Human Language

• Multiple commenters notice people unconsciously mimicking LLM phrasing and structure (listicles, “why it matters,” certain idioms).
• Some deliberately avoid AI‑ish tropes they now find grating; others find themselves adopting them after heavy AI use.
• Discussion that this is just another turn in language evolution, now co‑shaped by AI training and RLHF.

LinkedIn’s Remaining Utility for Work

• Strong split: some deleted accounts and rely on email, others say nearly all their jobs or projects over many years came via LinkedIn.
• Complaints about fake/“ghost” jobs, spammy recruiters, political/rage content, and poor job search UX, but acknowledgment that recruiters still heavily use the platform.

AI Writing: Voice, Thinking, and Access

• One camp: outsourcing writing to AI erodes personal voice and the thinking that writing forces; see it as ethically and cognitively harmful.
• Counter‑camp: most people write poorly or in a non‑native language; LLMs let them sound competent, reach audiences, and “find a voice” they couldn’t otherwise.
• Concern that AI gives an illusion of competence and may stunt real skill development.

AI Detection (Pangram) Debate

• Some praise Pangram as a valuable classifier that rarely mislabels genuine human text and could help preserve human spaces.
• Others call it “snake oil”: report false positives on their own writing, point to biases against non‑native English, and note how easily minor edits can fool detectors.
• Disagreement over claimed 0.01% false positive rate; several are highly skeptical.

Coping Strategies and Alternatives

• Suggestions: aggressively mute/“not interested” AI‑ish content, keep very small LinkedIn networks, or leave corporate platforms entirely.
• Interest in RSS, blogs, webrings, human‑verified or smaller communities, and browser plugins to filter slop.