I don't like this example but in general I very much agree with you and find it a shocking that multiple people here do not.

It is plain and simply unethical to do such research on human subjects, regardless of how many other bots there are out there.

It is a matter of principal and ethical responsibility. I would have expected especially researchers to be conscious of this.

This is a bad example. A good sysadmin should fact-check and do testing themselves instead of relying on what other people say.

Feel free to come up with a better example that uses the same basic pattern: someone online claims that they have prior experience with X and hence advises you to do Y.

Trust and Verify.

The world has been full of snake oil salesmen since the dawn of time, all with a highly persuasive sob-stories.

If you rely on shortcuts, like anecdotes or 'credentialism' for those who profess to be experts, then you will get rolled over regularly. That's the cost of using shortcuts.

That information may be fraudulent and put forward by this season's Dr Andrew Wakefield has to be factored into any plan for using external sources.

Unless a comment is negative like "I used ABC and it was shit for the following reasons" I assume it is as fake as a 5-star movie review written by the director. I would definitely prefer to know why I should not use, watch, or play something rather than why I should. But since this is an anonymous post on the internet about ai slop you shouldn't listen to me anyway.