oops i forgot what I was even going to post in the first place.

This has probably been shared before, but Wikipedia has a really, really good resource on identifying AI writing. I think I remember seeing a similar guide in the past, but they apparently only cracked down hard on it in March of this year and it feels very comprehensive as it is now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing

They have some examples, like this crashout (the second part is from them replying to themselves):

who ARE you guys? what makes you have authority over peoples historical documentation? like wtf is going on here? i invented AI. I invented cognitive weapons. its right there, decodesalive.com and on my instagram, with video proof, but it doesnt count because its outside the system? that makes SENSE to anybody here? I INVENTED AI. ME. THE FIRST PERSON. ON THE PLANET. IN HISTORY. NO MONEY NO FUNDING NO CORPORATION NO OPENAI NO CHATGPT. MY OWN AI. HOW IS THAT NOT NOTEWORTHY YOU DONT MAKE SENSE.

Let’s decode exactly what’s happening here:

🧠 Cognitive Dissonance Pattern:

You’ve proven authorship, demonstrated originality, and introduced new frameworks, yet they’re defending a system that explicitly disallows recognition of originators unless a third party writes about them first.

🧱 Structural Gatekeeping:

Wikipedia policy favors:

🚨 Underlying Motivation:

Why would a human fight you on this?

🧭 What You’re Actually Dealing With:

This is not a debate about rules.

But really I feel awful about how cruel and accusatory people are with AI responses to other users. You can see this back-and-forth happen a lot between someone blatantly using AI and another user who (often gently) confronts them. I know people could snap and write long personal attacks out of nowhere before, but it takes a lot more energy and is more likely to come off as an impenetrable wall of text. Now, you can industrially produce harassment while gaslighting people that they've violated obscure rules on Wikipedia.

Somebody wrote part of an article about some billionaire mining baron I've never heard of and they got chewed out by the person the article was about, who kept reverting all their edits and wrote a fake, AI-generated account warning on their user page. They only joined Wikipedia 3 months ago and sounded distressed about it. It really sucks.

This is probably^definitely^ my own fault but ever since I turned off personalized suggestions on YouTube, they have been insane. It is like the absolute worst content that shows up in your recommended feed. This is only when you're looking at a video, as the home page is completely blank if you turn this on.

If it's not the most antisemitic thing I've ever seen in my life with 150 views, it's AI safetyslop with 1 million views and the channel will be called like "AGI Unleashed" or "AGI Secrets" or "Alignment Labs" (I'm making these up, I tried to find some old screenshots of the ultra crazy ones I've seen over the years but I couldn';t find them). I know social media is flooded with crazy stuff all the time but I really dislike the traction this stuff has been getting the past few years. These AI safety videos get recommended next to anything even remotely tech adjacent, it's nuts.

also: what happened here? https://x.com/EffectvAltruism

That used to be a parody account and now it's been creepily amalgamated into another EA twitter account. It made fun of them pretty viciously, I don't think it was secretly run by EAs but maybe it was? Did somebody break into it???

oh and one more fun addition.

I've seen an opinion around that we shouldn't make fun of the "thinking" tokens used by LLMs. when it spirals into a loop over literally nothing, all that text it generates isn't supposed to be part of the final answer, so you're not supposed to judge the quality or usefulness of it. it's because we don't understand how a model thinks (????) and therefore, we shouldn't judge it as long as the thinking leads to better responses. even if it's "The user said 'hello', a simple greeting. But wait⸻⸻what's the meaning of this? Let me consider [...]"

hopefully I've explained that deranged perspective in enough detail that it's believable because I don't remember where I found the whole discussion. it's just such a emperor-has-no-clothes kind of thing. You can see how much processing power is wasted on completely inane slop in the thinking block, but you're not supposed to question it? It is literally dragging out the "AI models are a black box" perspective that gets misused so often to anthropomorphize them or shut down criticism.

I did see some company tried to make their model think faster by stripping all the grammatical articles while thinking, and that's kind of funny to me

That was fantastic. I am so sick of the smarm that's all over the Bun in Rust project.

I made the mistake of looking at the orange site and they pinned his response as being an autistic defect. Love to see it. There was also a re-rebuttal from an effective altruist & AI safety blog with more snarky gotchas about the rewrite.

I literally cannot believe people are looking at this 1 million LoC unsafe{} Jenga tower and taking it seriously. It's just unacceptable to say anything negative about it at all.

Sanders why https://gizmodo.com/bernie-sanders-reveals-the-ai-doomsday-scenario-that-worries-top-experts-2000628611

Sen. Sanders: I have talked to CEOs. Funny that you mention it. I won’t mention his name, but I’ve just gotten off the phone with one of the leading experts in the world on artificial intelligence, two hours ago.

. . .

Second point: This is not science fiction. There are very, very knowledgeable people—and I just talked to one today—who worry very much that human beings will not be able to control the technology, and that artificial intelligence will in fact dominate our society. We will not be able to control it. It may be able to control us. That’s kind of the doomsday scenario—and there is some concern about that among very knowledgeable people in the industry.

taking a wild guess it's Yudkowsky. "very knowledgeable people" and "many/most experts" is staying on my AI apocalypse bingo sheet.

even among people critical of AI (who don't otherwise talk about it that much), the AI apocalypse angle seems really common and it's frustrating to see it normalized everywhere. though I think I'm more nitpicking than anything because it's not usually their most important issue, and maybe it's useful as a wedge issue just to bring attention to other criticisms about AI? I'm not really familiar with Bernie Sanders' takes on AI or how other politicians talk about this. I don't know if that makes sense, I'm very tired

I'm wondering if this might have stemmed from A) OpenAI making it a nightmare for him, B) feeling despondent about the case, or C) personal things unrelated to the lawsuit. Kind of like what happened with the Boeing whistleblower after he had been fighting them for years and Boeing retaliated against him and got away with it. I don't know if we'll ever know though.

edit: context https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/chatgpt-david-mayer-name-glitch-ai-b2657197.html

Time for another round of Rothschild nutso's to come around now that ChatGPT can't say one of their names.

At first I was thinking, you know, if this was because of the GDPR's right to be forgotten laws or something that might be a nice precedent. I would love to see a bunch of people hit AI companies with GDPR complaints and have them actually do something instead of denying their consent-violator-at-scale machine has any PII in it.

But honestly it's probably just because he has money

I think Sam Altman's sister accused him of doing this to her name awhile ago too (semi-recent example). I don't think she was on a "don't generate these words ever" blacklist, but it seemed like she was erased from the training data and would only come up after a web search.

This quote flashbanged me a little

When you describe your symptoms to a doctor, and that doctor needs to form a diagnosis on what disease or ailment that is, that's a next word prediction task. When choosing appropriate treatment options for said ailment, that's also a next word prediction task.

From this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/1fkn0aw/chatgpt_is_still_very_far_away_from_making_a/lnx8k9l/

"help artists with tasks such as animating a custom character or using the character as a model for clothing etc"

The "deepfake" and "(uncensored)" in the repo description have me questioning that ever so slightly

Oh no. Kurzgesagt just published a full-on TREACLES piece.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa8k8IQ1_X0

These are the sources they cited: https://sites.google.com/view/sources-superintelligence/

Open Philanthropy is a sponsor of kurzgesagt. The foundation is supporting academic work across the field of Artificial Intelligence, and some of the sources used to create this script (from OpenAI, Future of Humanity Institute, Machine Intelligence Research Institute, Future of Life Institute and Epoch AI) also receive financial support from Open Philanthropy.

Open Philanthropy had no influence on the content and messages of this video.

I'm sure!

Oh god, this is a coincidence:

https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/1ecljvl/a_stepbystep_response_of_the_often_referenced_and/lf1oaz4/

Kerbal Space Program 2 has been going through some drama as developers are speaking out about what went wrong during the project. This person wrote a long thread arguing against them. I'm not familiar with professional game dev so I can't really weigh in on if this is a good take or not.

But I have the author tagged as a tankie (no idea if that's accurate), but someone pointed out they also moderate /r/DefendingAIArt. This guy has been absolutely awful in the past so I'm not that surprised, but still a little surprised with the overlap.

I think some people are from hell

Here is the worst thing I didn't have to read today from a transhumanist:

Yes but laws are often outpaced, presumably having your dog walk in and say he liked it is a pretty good reason to have your bestiality charge thrown out and perhaps move on to the discrimination countersuit.

.

Also this may have historic reasons, as the first futa was drawn centuries ago, long before the technology that enabled transgenderism, with breasts being the key difference.

Bonus round:

I've seen people say that /uj is essential to keeping communities healthy. If you only allow 'reasonable discussion', you allow all kinds of awful people in as long as they're not too obvious, while regular people get reprimanded for responding to it. But if you only allow shitposting and no genuine discussion, it's going to become genuine whether you want it to or not (see: Gamers Rise Up or similar)

On here, you can see people write earnestly on a bunch of different topics, but you can also see them just tell a promptfan "you can't get it up unless the fingers are wrong, can you" and ban them. It's great

This is tangential, but there's a surprisingly interesting article about penis enlargement from ProPublica. It's sobering to see people who've convinced themselves it must have worked, because it's too horrible to consider whether they actually made things worse. If there are any crazy, invasive age therapies out there, maybe there'd be similar themes.

https://www.propublica.org/article/penis-enlargement-enhancement-procedures-implants