31–40 of 79 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, what jargon is that? I may be able to fix it with your help. I'm not in the USA and don't follow US politics or culture enough to be up to 2025 in jargon.
"Woke cretin."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument would've been much better without injecting ca. 2025 US culture war jargon into it.
Sorry, what jargon is that? I may be able to fix it with your help. I'm not in the USA and don't follow US politics or culture enough to be up to 2025 in jargon.
I think it may be better to say that the author has an agenda or is co-opting real issues, but I can't think of an elegant way to phrase that.
This is just like the way some people decided that "Blue Check" should be an insult on Twitter. Occasionally people still say it but almost everyone ignores it. Fads like this are common on the Internet. It's just like any other clique of people: a few people accidentally taste-make as a bunch of replicators simply repeat mindless things over and over again "slop" "mask-off moment" "enshittification" "ghoulish". Just…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, what jargon is that? I may be able to fix it with your help. I'm not in the USA and don't follow US politics or culture enough to be up to 2025 in jargon.
I will say it's funny seeing a post which starts off calling someone a 'woke cretin' ending with a lightly veiled take-that at Musk. I think it may be better to say that the author has an agenda or is co-opting real issues, but I can't think of an elegant way to phrase that.
I don't really agree with the general argument, though. I don't think painting this as an "AI Slop" issue is fair. Online communities are quicker (and quieter!) when dismissing obvious AI Slop than when dismissing legitimate discourse that looks like AI, or was cleaned-up with AI, or even it just uses Em––Dashes. Perhaps the excusable usage is marking content as machine-translated, which of course causes other disadvantages for the poster. But of course that's just one point of view and communities I don’t go to might be 100% different!
Sarkar argues that “AI shaming arises from a class anxiety induced in middle class knowledge workers, and is a form of boundary work to maintain class solidarity and limit mobility into knowledge work.” I think there is at least some truth to this. Another possible cause of AI shaming is that reading AI writing feels like a waste of time. If the author didn’t bother to write it, why should I bother to read it and pro…
I like to discuss a topic with a LLM and generate an article at the end. It is more structured and better worded but still reflects my own ideas. I only post these articles in a private blog I don't pass them as my own writing. But I find this exercise useful to me because I use LLMs as a brainstorming and idea-debugging space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will say it's funny seeing a post which starts off calling someone a 'woke cretin' ending with a lightly veiled take-that at Musk. I think it may be better to say that the author has an agenda or is co-opting real issues, but I can't think of an elegant way to phrase that.
Or maybe we should give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume he's unhappy with both radical ends of the spectrum, which would be a refreshing take in 2025 to be honest. I don't really agree with the general argument, though. I don't think painting this as an "AI Slop" issue is fair. Online communities are quicker (and quieter!) when dismissing obvious AI Slop than when dismissing legitimate discourse that l…
Seems to be very hard to realize that in the US. But from the outside, both ends are batshit insane.
This reads like yet another attempt to pathologize perfectly reasonable criticism as some form of oppression. Calling “AI could have written this” a classist slur is a stretch so extreme it borders on parody. People say that when writing lacks originality or depth — not to reinforce some imagined academic caste system. The idea that pointing out bland prose is equivalent to sumptuary laws or racial gatekeeping is int…
In AI discussions the relevance of Poe's law is rampant. You can never tell what is parody or what is not.
There was a (former) xAI employee that got fired for advocating the extinction of humanity.
I'd like to brag that I got in trouble for saying this to somebody in 2021, before ChatGPT
I put a chapter of a paper I wrote in 2016 into GPTZero and got the probability breakdown 90% AI, 10% human. I am 100% human, and I wrote it myself, so I guess I'm lucky that I didn't hand it in this year, or I could have gotten accused of cheating?
And it's all wrapped in a lovely package of AI apologetics - wonderful.
So, honestly, no. The identity of the author doesn't matter, if it reads like AI slop the author should be grateful I even left an "AI could have written this" comment.