431–440 of 468 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear you — and the problem is real
This comment is load-bearing − the LLM-generated text was the smoking gun. (Claude)
I quit facebook over a decade ago. Then, a few months back, I was under some pressure to sell something, and the facebook marketplace appears to be the way to go locally. So I tried to create a facebook account. They wanted to scan my face, and in a moment of weakness, I performed the ritual. Thirty seconds later, they suspended my account due to violations of their terms of service: "this decision cannot be appealed…
It should also be noted Facebook does nothing in good faith because Zuckerberg's core personality is what it is It isn't that biometrics might never make sense but when it comes to Facebook? He's a black hat hacker who deserves prison
Zuck was a scumbag to start with, but being the kind of admin that gets to jerk people around on the basis of their biology is a corrupting kind of power. Even a well meaning individual, given a few decades at the helm of a company based around treating user's faces like they're the company's intellectual property, would have become a scumbag by now.
Maybe biometrics as a convenience, where they don't leave the device they're captured on and are secondary to some other credential which the user can change, are alright. But any central registry of people's body parts is gonna be a short cut to bad juju. It's an architecture we should work to prevent because it'll create Zuck-a-likes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you can assume your identity was compromised. I know the Facebook denial dialog suggests that "unusual activity" was detected and you need to access it via your mobile device. Of course as you know that doesn't help. I signed on for Meta enhanced support for a month (nb, don't bother doing this, it's a waste of money) and had numerous voice calls with pandering support people who assured me it had nothi…
> Meta enhanced support I’m sorry am I reading this right? You now have to pay for the privilege of getting support so you can participate in Zuck’s infostealer so that he can then sell your data and make money off it? I think I’m getting too old for tech.
Can't we even write a short text like this without LLMs anymore, not even when it's really important, when it's about humans against the inhumane ?
I also will not take any article or website seriously if it uses AI generated graphics/art.
But man am I tired of the "Too good to be made by a regular person, but too average in every way to be made by a graphic designer" [1] graphics. It's just so smarmy somehow, "hey isn't my article a blast with these slick graphics?"
1 - seen today in a funny nymag article about AI bodega signs: https://www.curbed.com/article/ai-slop-bodega-signage-design...
It ends with "The platforms need you far more than you need them". And I think this is the misconception. No, they don't. The amount of people who will sign this, is a fraction of a fraction of a "platform"'s users. They will not care if they lose 50,000 users out of 2 Billion. A drop in the ocean. Not the target audience anyway. And that is the real shame. Because I don't want to have to give my face or do age verif…
There is such a thing as principled resistance? Not everything has to pass some EA effectiveness test. Some inconvenience or discomfort is rewarded by the self-integrity bolstered by rejecting things you don't support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should also be noted Facebook does nothing in good faith because Zuckerberg's core personality is what it is It isn't that biometrics might never make sense but when it comes to Facebook? He's a black hat hacker who deserves prison
There are cases where it's sufficient to find a leader with sufficient moral fiber to resist corruption, but I don't think this is one of them. Zuck was a scumbag to start with, but being the kind of admin that gets to jerk people around on the basis of their biology is a corrupting kind of power. Even a well meaning individual, given a few decades at the helm of a company based around treating user's faces like they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that these are signs of AI, but they're also the way that people write. I use the "it's not X it's Y" framing a lot of the time because it's a quick way to get my point across. It's probably the sign of a bad writer because I can't come up with a different/better way to say the same thing, but I'm not AI.
> I agree that these are signs of AI, but they're also the way that people write Certainly. If these were one-offs in an otherwise human written piece then we wouldn't even be discussing it. In this case, they're just the simplest examples in an objectively LLM produced piece. I'm happy to point to more if you're skeptical; I'd happily wager cash the prose here wasn't written by human fingers.
AI slop in my mind is anything that's completely written by AI with the only human input being "hey it would be nice if this article existed in the world"... If the human doesn't verify or edit anything the AI wrote, then I might as well just prompt the AI myself if it's a topic I'm interested in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that these are signs of AI, but they're also the way that people write. I use the "it's not X it's Y" framing a lot of the time because it's a quick way to get my point across. It's probably the sign of a bad writer because I can't come up with a different/better way to say the same thing, but I'm not AI.
I could tell it was AI, but it was interesting nonetheless. FWIW, I don't think AI enablement is inherently bad; this can be a game changer for an individual with an interesting thought yet difficulty expressing themselves in written word. (Obviously, it's also created a real problem with the ability to create near infinite well-written content, especially in the case of propaganda.) I do agree with you that the quot…
I suspect the prompt given to the AI was 3 sentences, maybe interesting sentences,
and everything else was AI expanded, a waste of everyone's time? (Those who read everything)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cynicism isn't knowledge. Cynicism isn't an assessment. Cynicism is an assumption. Cynicism is emotional armor because the thought of caring again and the risk of it not panning out is more painful than not caring at all. The only rational aspect of cynicism is that it makes you feel better. It isn't relevant about one's actual ability to change the world. If efforts in the past didn't work to affect political change…
When has this tactic (opting out to force change) ever worked on problems of any meaningful scale before? Please don’t say the civil rights movement, because those boycotts were not effective on their own. Pressure is required to force change, and opting out does not produce the necessary pressure unless it is genuinely a significant portion of users and lasts years. These strategies have been tried time and time aga…
Ever pay attention to all those groups (private sector or otherwise) that end up influencing policy creation? Ever think of trying to get other government agencies or already-trusted organizations on your side as opposed to trying to establish yourself as a credible voice to ocotogenarians who can't tell the difference between an expert and someone blowing smoke?
Finding allies to support your policy goals doesn't need to stop at asking random people on the Internet. It's a woefully underexplored area for Internet freedom activists.