mirrorwitch @ mirrorwitch @awful.systems

Posts

4

Comments

50

Joined

1 yr. ago

I've often called slop "signal-shaped noise". I think the damage already done by slop pissed all over the reservoirs of knowledge, art and culture is irreversible and long-lasting. This is the only thing generative "AI" is good at, making spam that's hard to detect.

It occurs to me that one way to frame this technology is as a precise inversion of Bayesian spam filters for email; no more and no less. I remember how it was a small revolution, in the arms race against spammers, when statistical methods came up; everywhere we took of the load of straining SpamAssassin with rspamd (in the years before gmail devoured us all). I would argue "A Plan for Spam" launched Paul Graham's notoriety, much more than the Lisp web stores he was so proud of. Filtering emails by keywords was not being enough, and now you could train your computer to gradually recognise emails that looked off, for whatever definition of "off" worked for your specific inbox.

Now we have the richest people building the most expensive, energy-intensive superclusters to use the same statistical methods the other way around, to generate spam that looks like not-spam, and is therefore immune to all filtering strategies we had developed. That same blob-like malleability of spam filters makes the new spam generators able to fit their output to whatever niche they want to pollute; the noise can be shaped like any signal.

I wonder what PG is saying about gen-"AI" these days? let's check:

“AI is the exact opposite of a solution in search of a problem,” he wrote on X. “It’s the solution to far more problems than its developers even knew existed … AI is turning out to be the missing piece in a large number of important, almost-completed puzzles.”
He shared no examples, but […]

Who would have thought that A Plan for Spam was, all along, a plan for spam.

choice quote from Elsevier's response:

Q. Have authors consented to these hyperlinks in their scientific articles?
Yes, it is included on the signed agreement between the author and Elsevier.

Q. If I were to publish my work with Elsevier, do I risk that hyperlinks to AI summaries will be added to my papers without my consent?
Yes, because you will need to sign an agreement with Elsevier.

consent, everyone!

From gormless gray voice to misattributed sources, it can be daunting to read articles that turn out to be slop. However, incorporating the right tools and techniques can help you navigate instructionals in the age of AI. Let's delve right in and and learn some telltale signs like:

• Every goddamn article reads like this now.
• With this bullet point list at some point.
• I am going to tear the eyes off my head

The whole Linux userbase loves x11libre, an initiative to preserve X11 alive as an alternative to Wayland! 5 seconds later We regret to inform you x11libre guy is a Nazi apologist

My T-shirt: there's 0 good uses for self-driving taxis
Protesters: call self-driving taxis to block streets on the way of the police, then set the damn things on fire
My T-shirt: there's 1 good uses for self-driving taxis

Yeah I'm not thrilled to get that particular type of attention but I knew the risks when I clicked "publish" on that particular topic.

Clicked the link out of curiosity, saw that the top comment was some soothing rationale on how it's not unethical to force 3rd world people to clean up after you (under the threat of starvation on the streets) as long as you say good evening to them that makes you a nice guy, then closed the tab again. My weekend is better off not reading the orange site, but even though I wasn't aiming for a particularly literary or poetic form in this piece, it's still a type of validation to know that Scott Alexander readers can't parse my essay style.

Thanks! I did put a lot of effort in this piece for reasons I myself can't explain, I'm glad it could strike a chord.

é nóis pô x3

I have read Graeber&Wengrow yeah 👍 instant anarchist classic

I mean you can set a type for a column even back in 2016, I'm sure, and then it won't actually convert. But if you care about that kind of thing chances are you're using R or something, if you're doing genetics on Excel at all you're probably spamming publish-or-perish, and renaming a bunch of genes was, I think, tragically reasonable to prevent against that kind of research further polluting the data pool.

Which is to say, ChatGPT is an opportunistic infection that spread so far because it found a sick body…

Did it, and added illustrations besides (to break that humongous wall of text lol). Thanks for your encouragement!

Please let me commiserate my miserable misery, Awful dot Systems. So the other day I was flirting with this person—leftie, queer, sexy terrorist vibes, just my type—and asked if they had any plans for the weekend, and they said like, "will be stuck in the lab trying to finish a report lol". They are an academic in an area related to biomedicine, I don't want to get more specific than that. Wanting to be there for emotional support I invited them to talk about their research if they wanted to. The person said,

"Oh I am paying for MULTIPLE CHATGPT ACCOUNTS that I'm using to handle the", I swear to Gods I'm not making this up, "MATHLAB CODE, but I keep getting basic errors, like wrong variable names stuff like that, so I have to do a lot of editing and…". Desperate emphases mine.

And at this point I was literally speechless. I was having flashbacks of back in 2016 when it was this huge scandal that 1 in 5 papers in genetics had data errors because they used Microsoft Excel and it would ‘smartly’ mangle tokens like SEPT2 into a date-time cell. The field has since evolved, of course (=they threw in the towel and renamed the gene to SEPTIN2, and similarly for other tokens that Excel gets too smart about). I was having ominous visions of what the entirety body of published scientific data is about to become.

I considered how otherwise cool this person was and whether I should start a gentle argument, but all I could say was "haha yeah, mathlab is hard".

I feel like a complete and utter blowhard saying this, but now that I told you the story I have no other choice but to blurt it out: I am no longer flirting with this person.

Thank you.

I wrote a memoir thing on my brief, dystopic time at Google . I'm not sure if me reminiscing about the time when I sold out fits the topic of the forum, but I think a lot of it qualifies as sneering and might generally interest this audience.

I cannot understand the reason y'all find the couple sneerable, as I look at that tweet and see something I very much would have done to one of my partners if they asked, and the language used by the bottom as the same language my partners might have used to describe the activity. If anything it's very much on the tame side, for our standards. Promiscuity is me trying to understand what is it that's so sneerable in the first place. Is it just "lol sex thing weird"? Is it "you'll regret your tattoo when you get older"? Me and my girls have done so much more intensely weirder sex things and more risqué tattoos. I expect to be ridiculed for it by like, cishet right-wing men, but to find that type of attitude here was shocking.

Like, "virtue signalling" as in the thing that rats accuse us of doing every time we have a motivation they cannot comprehend such as basic empathy, right? As in the rationalist's stereotypically verbose euphemism for what previous generations of misogynistic male nerds used to call "attention whoring"? Is that the sneerable thing then, that people like showing off when they do an unusual sex thing? Because if so I have like, years of mastodon flirty banter y'all can go sneer at, if we're branching out from "nerdy fascism bad" to "kink on main bad".

That's very much the language my play partners use online, though? I totally post banter like "that submissive was so blanked out that I took advantage of them by doing X", to which they'll reply "implying I didn't evily manipulated you into doing that in the first place", and so on. This is so commonplace in my communities that I failed to even understand what could be the problem before you pointed it out. I mean, "I forced my famous domme to mark me as a trophy as her #100 simp"? How would you exactly force (non-kink sense) someone to tattoo you anyway, and if you did and were unwise enough to brag about it, presumably the microcelebrity in question wouldn't like and retweet it? I took it to mean "I was so into the idea of being marked, I'm glad she agreed to my pestering", and I would bet money if any of my people talked in that exact wording, that's what everyone would take it as. I mean, otherwise I would probably have been arrested for the frequency of times I say "bye everyone gonna tie someone up and do unspeakably cruel things to them" and whatnot

Ok I have to say, I despise aella but as a promiscuous woman I completely fail to see what's supposed to be the problem with this particular form of play. That people like having casual sex? That they have slut pride? What.

I probably passed the 100 mark myself several years ago, I've hooked up with girls with much more obvious slut tattoos too, and we're all antifascist anarchists. Is this community ok with sneering at public sexuality now?

The only thing I found vaguely mid in that X is using a tattoo gun rather than scarification, branding, or at least stick-and-poke. But I don't kink-shame people for being casuals.

If you're in Germany I like the Mühle Grande a lot. I use it with any random foam from DM and with Astra blades which cost 10€ for a pack of 100. The blades last me over a year.

Huh, I had missed the part in 2020 when Peter Thiel just flat out stated outright that it only makes sense to be in favour of capitalism if you're a capital owner.

We live in hellworld, please don't get my hopes up...

jesus fucking christ I think that IDF tweet is the worst thing that has ever existed