Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)

    • BlueMonday1984@awful.systemsOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      It’s all gotta be in the models by now, but it’s gonna be a cool resource for something, right?

      It’ll also be helpful for helping the 'Net recover from the slop-nami once AI finally dies.

  • corbin@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 days ago

    Last Week Tonight’s rant of the week is about AI slop. A Youtube video is available here. Their presentation is sufficiently down-to-earth to be sharable with parents and extended family, focusing on fake viral videos spreading via Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest; and dissecting several examples of slop in order to help inoculate the audience.

  • BlueMonday1984@awful.systemsOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 days ago

    Starting this off with Baldur Bjarnason sneering at his fellow techies for their “reading” of Dante’s Inferno:

    Reading through my feed reader and seeing tech dilettantes “doing” Dante in a week and change, I’m reminded of the time in university when we spent half a semester discussing Dante’s Divine Comedy, followed by tracing it’s impact and influence over the centuries

    I don’t think these assholes even bother to read their footnotes, and their writing all sounds like it comes from ChatGPT. Naturally so, because I believe them when they claim they don’t use it for writing. They’re just genuinely that dull

    At least read the footnotes FFS

    If they were reading Dante for pleasure, that’d be different—genuinely awesome, even. But all of this is framed as doing the entirety of “humanities” in the space of a few weeks.

  • gerikson@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    Following up on the thread that spawned from my comment yesterday:

    https://awful.systems/comment/7777035

    (I’m in vacation mode and forgot it was late on Sunday)

    I wonder if Habryka, the LWer who posted both there and on Xhitter that “someone should do something about this troublesome page” realized that there would be less pushback if he’d simply coordinated in the background and got the edits in place without forewarning others. Was it intentional to try to pick a fight with Wikipedians?

    • scruiser@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      The wikipedia talk page is some solid sneering material. It’s like Habryka and HandofLixue can’t imagine any legitimate reason why Wikipedia has the norms it does, and they can’t imagine how a neutral Wikipedian could come to write that article about lesswrong.

      Eigenbra accurately calling them out…

      “I also didn’t call for any particular edits”. You literally pointed to two sentences that you wanted edited.

      Your twitter post also goes against Wikipedia practices by casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I can’t speak for any of the other editors, but I can say I have never read nor edited RationalWiki, so you might be a little paranoid in that regard.

      As to your question:

      Was it intentional to try to pick a fight with Wikipedians?

      It seems to be ignorance on Habyrka’s part, but judging by the talk page, instead of acknowledging their ignorance of Wikipedia’s reasonable policies, they seem to be doubling down.

      • Soyweiser@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Amazing how both accounts refuse to directly answer the ‘are you involved in LW/SSC’ question, but work around that question so much (and get so defensive) that they are very suspicious.

      • scruiser@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Following up because the talk page keeps providing good material…

        Hand of Lixue keeps trying to throw around the Wikipedia rules like the other editors haven’t seen people try to weaponize the rules to push their views many times before.

        Particularly for the unflattering descriptions I included, I made sure they reflect the general view in multiple sources, which is why they might have multiple citations attached. Unfortunately, that has now led to complaints about overcitation from @Hand of Lixue. You can’t win with some people…

        Looking back on the original lesswrong brigade organizing discussion of how to improve the wikipedia article, someone tried explaining to Habyrka the rules then and they were dismissive.

        I don’t think it counts as canvassing in the relevant sense, as I didn’t express any specific opinion on how the article should be edited.

        Yes Habyrka, because you clearly have such a good understanding of the Wikipedia rules and norms…

        Also, heavily downvoted on the lesswrong discussion is someone suggesting Wikipedia is irrelevant because LLMs will soon be the standard for “access to ground truth”. I guess even lesswrong knows that is bullshit.

        • YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Adding onto this chain of thought, does anyone else think the talk page’s second top-level comment from non-existent user “habryka” is a bit odd? Especially since after Eigenbra gives it a standard Wikipedian (i.e. unbearably jargon-ridden and a bit pedantic but entirely accurate and reasonable in its substance) reply, new user HandofLixue comes in with:

          ABOUT ME You seem to have me confused with Habryka - I did not make any Twitter post about this. Nonetheless, you have reverted MY edits…

          Kinda reads like they’re the same person? I mean Habryka is also active further down the thread so this is almost certainly just my tinfoil hat being too tight and cutting off circulation and/or reading this unfold in bits and pieces rather than putting it all together.