Random question for the 60ish people left on this forum (based off voting on tapatalk question), if you've been getting texts for your local elections, have you replied? Did a person respond?

If I were a candidate, all my money would be on texting and in person replies. Engage the person, empathize, get em to vote for me. A million spend this way is votes. Attack ad bullshit is a waste.

Thoughts?

The human on the other end couldn't convince me they're not a bot and therefore it wouldn't do anything for me. Claude et al are just too good and fluent to trust an unseen respondent.

Yeah, but the average IQ can spot AI a mile away.

Maybe. But I also find politicians response to question unhuman most of the time so it'd be hard to tell if it's political bullshit or a bot. "Well Bob, what I find really important to talk about is <insert totally unreleated topic here>." Polished politicians are about as human as Claude.

And, I would reply, AI me, vote lost. That's why I think an old school, people based, text/reply, ad campaign, might mean the difference between winning or losing. If I were a candidate and had a million, I'd 100% spend it on real people engaging real people.

People know when its AI. Anything less you got or lost their vote long ago. The middle, no affiliation types, double hating, kind need dialog and reason to vote. Engagement can gain votes. I know, because it could gain mine.

I've been spammed by the election texts this cycle. I find them annoying and have not responded to a single one.