When it comes to robocontent, I ironically react like a robot from westworld. I look at it, but it doesn't look like anything to me. It has no meaning. It's just noise, a page of static.
I suspect robocontent fetishists look at all art as static. They don't understand that there is intention behind art. They are fundamentally incompatible with human experience. They are disconnected and insensitive to the creative world, and that's just sad.
stop gaslighting yourself
Despite the lack of evidence, this idea is gaining traction in scientific circles as well as in the entertainment industry.
lol
This fractal sucks because it’s the voices of the underprivileged that need to be amplified. Using gen AI will smother them entirely.
At risk of making points for the other side, AI Welfare Debate Week is something GLaDOS would come up with as a ploy for more bodies to experiment with.
Sneering my way through the comments.
Here’s Jonatan Pallesen, whose twitter bio is: “PhD in statistical genetics. I analyze and tweet about questions in science and economics.” HMM.
Another example of targeting in this case is me. I wrote a critique of Claudine Gay's research, which I think is quite strong. (https://x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1749546447811277119 and https://x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1740324971430154471)
Putting aside the validity of the critiques, why does this fellow feel the need to look into this research at this point in time? Could it be that he is… targeting Gay while she is in the limelight? Couldn’t be, only the evil media would do such a thing.
And for this I was attacked by the Guardian for things completely unrelated, such as my views on immigration, and previous coauthors.
So I went ahead and searched the dude’s name and “guardian”. Here’s what showed up.
If I were to guess why he was “attacked” (really just reported on accurately), it would be that he was name checked by one of the main parties involved in Gay’s resignation, and the guardian was doing its due diligence and investigating every aspect of the story. That’s way less assuming than Jon’s explanation of being targeted.
It can obviously have a chilling effect if you write a critique of a scientific paper, you risk being called racist by a major newspaper.
Better ways to say what really happened:
For those that don’t want to look it up and are ok with a potentially incomplete version:
Apparently it’s when someone (in PUA context, a woman) says, does, or demands something disingenuously to see how you react to it. My guess is that there are PUA doctrines about how to react and detect this sort of thing.
As is a PUA framed thing, it’s probably a way for someone to dismiss any boundary setting behaviour as gaslighting, which is ofc fucked.
Nothing is sacred to anyone who is willing to consume or make this kinda thing. 100% of showcases of AI capability are just AIs copying something humans do. Sometimes it’s chess. Other times it’s copying Monet, of Van Gogh, or in this case, Carlin.
This is exactly the kind of thing that the WGA was striking against and what big media corporations want to have happen. As shown by some of the comments in this thread there are people that are absolutely fine with facsimile as art. It’s all bad and I hate it. I especially hate how nostalgia for the classics is gonna drive this.
It's gotta be a rule that nothing earns you more clout with internet weirdos than defending pedophiles/ephlehebbleleoflphiles
“Today I will display my mastery of LOGIC and PERSUASION by contriving a scenario in which one simply MUST mercy kill their adult progeny. The masses will PROSTRATE themselves before me in ADORATION. They will learn to REVERE and FEAR the magnitude of my brain.”
is definitely a normal one for an ssc user.
Six word metafictional story: