Artificial Intelligence Creates 35% of New Websites, Does Not Seek Truth, Justice, Beauty, or Love

A team of researchers from Stanford, the Imperial College of London, and the Internet Archive have found that just over a third of websites created since 2022 have been generated by robots:

Inspired by the Dead Internet Theory—the idea that much of the internet is now just bots talking back and forth—the team set out to find out how ChatGPT and its competitors had reshaped the internet since 2022. “The proliferation of AI-generated and AI-assisted text on the internet is feared to contribute to a degradation in semantic and stylistic diversity, factual accuracy, and other negative developments,” the researchers write in the paper. “We find that by mid-2025, roughly 35% of newly published websites were classified as AI-generated or AI-assisted, up from zero before ChatGPT’s launch in late 2022” [Matthew Gault, “Study Finds a Third of New Websites Are AI-Generated,” 404 Media, 2026.04.27].

This study finds that AI slop may not be as sloppy as we fear:

The researchers also tested six common critiques of AI-generated text. Does it lead to a shrinking of viewpoints? Does it create more disinformation as hallucinations proliferate? Does online writing feel more sanitized and cheerful? Does it fail to cite its sources? Does it create strings of words with low semantic density? Has it forced writing into a monoculture where unique voices vanish and a generic, uniform style takes hold?

…To the surprise of the researchers, only two of the six theories they tested about the effects of AI-generated text seemed true. AI was making the internet less semantically diverse and more positive overall, but it wasn’t causing a proliferation in lies or cutting out its sources.

“The most surprising result was that our Truth Decay hypothesis wasn’t confirmed,” [Stanford co-author Jonáš] Doležal said. “It’s worth noting that we were specifically looking for an increase in verifiably untrue statements, which we didn’t find. But it could still be the case that AI is quietly increasing the volume of unverifiable claims, ones that can’t be checked against existing fact-checking tools and infrastructure. Or it may simply be that the internet wasn’t a particularly truth-adhering place to begin with” [Gault, 2026.04.27].

I remain committed to not publishing or even reading AI content. I’ve formulated a rough moral framework for deciding what to post online:

Truth. Justice. Beauty. Love.

If what you want to say promotes at least one of those values, then sure, blog it, tweet it, share it, whatever.

But if what’s on the tip of your tongue does not tell the truth, seek justice, share or add to the world’s beauty, or express love, then hit Pause, not Publish.

Artificial intelligence has no interest in truth, justice, beauty, or love. Its mathematical models have no more commitment to informing the public, defending democracy, or crafting effective legislation than the fluid dynamics that determine the outputs of a Magic 8 Ball. That’s why, contrary to the opinion of several lazy legislators, artificial intelligence has no place providing text and arguments in responsible discussion of civic affairs.

I avoid speaking to people (like grudznick) who have no interest in truth, justice, beauty, or love. Why would I speak to a robot with the same deficiency… other than to study its responses or play games?

I want no robot content on this blog—not in my posts, not in the comments, not in the questions and suggestions you send me. If I want to hear from a robot, I’ll go straight to a robot.

If you still wish to create and publish material generated by artificial intelligence, at least do your fellow humans the courtesy of clearly labeling that material at the top as AI-generated, so those of us committed to human communication, rooted in truth, justice, beauty, and love, can ignore and delete it.