I see what you mean. But that's not a new problem caused by AI's, which I think was the original point.
I'm sure that all (useful) social media sites have a way to flag, or down vote such massive influxes.
Bot recognition of some sort of rate-limit transgression is another issue entirely, and not what I was trying to comment about (content based spam labelling based on "AI" authorship).
Perhaps I missed the point of the OP, in which case please ignore me ;-)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a real supporter of LLM's but it's fair to say that not all text which is generated by an AI is spam. Depending on the effort put into prompting and preparation it is quite possible that it is valuable , useful and original content but that the author has used an AI to polish the language.
The problem is of course how to distinguish the one from the other. Just using the "AI detection" tools is however not going to get the answer we need. Most probably the usual upvoting schemes will continue to be the best way.
I'm going to be quite happy if the quality of the grammar, and in some cases the language, improves. Better quality text makes it easier to concentrate on the real thing I'm interested in: the content and ideas!
I'm sure that all (useful) social media sites have a way to flag, or down vote such massive influxes.
Bot recognition of some sort of rate-limit transgression is another issue entirely, and not what I was trying to comment about (content based spam labelling based on "AI" authorship).
Perhaps I missed the point of the OP, in which case please ignore me ;-)