Our current government can't even monitor for screwworm, measles, and salads.
You think they can successfully track the smartest and most individually dangerous citizens, who have been previously vetted, and work inside the system already?
Let's be careful to separate capable-of from motivated-to.
Those three "can't even monitor" situations can be traced to blocs with both (A) a financial profit if they succeed and (B) some non-clandestine political clout to sabotage/discontinue things.
What are you talking about? There have been 5 (five) cases of screwworm in the us and the us is responding by producing millions of sterile male screwworms a day as we speak.
Oh the Trump DOGE losers cut funding for the monitoring program, and it’s already showing up, despite being successfully managed for decades.
Basically shocking levels of incompetence; start an unpopular war, lowest approval ratings of any president ever, pardon J6 traitors, $6/gallon diesel levels of incompetence.
The average life cycle is 20 days, during which time a female can lay ~3000 eggs and travel up to 200km. In 1971 there were 473 confirmed cases in the United States, in 1972 migrating flies breached the sterile fly barrier, and by 1973 it spiked to more than 100,000 US cases.
Didn’t Obama and Biden both deport more people than Trump has? It didn’t require ICE to become some kind of militarized police force, and there was no question they got a day in court, and nobody was exiled to a different country that than they were from.
The deportations aren’t the fascistic part, all that other stuff is?
Generally championing the removal of rights IS seen as fascistic - so removing gay marriage in 2026 would be a good example. That differs from 2008, before the right was universally won, however.
In both cases it seems like you’re minimizing some serious differences, or either not arguing in good faith or extremely confused about why people are calling things fascist these days.
I have examples to help:
Starting a war without Congress? That’s fascist. Ignoring the courts? Also fascist. Pardoning J6 traitors? Fascist. Using the presidency to enrich yourself? Threatening the news, comedians, and artists you don’t like? Threatening your allies (Canada)? Putting your name and image all over things? Taking large gifts to swing favors, even whole jets? Minimizing and interrupting science and the arts, especially any that goes against your investments? Interfering with the courts and trying to use right wing weirdos to claim that we have a “unitary executive”? Interfering with the post office, closing polling places, and partisan redistricting?
Those things, especially taken holistically, are very indicative of fascism. But I can’t see how they wouldn’t have been considered the same in 2010?
I'm autistic. When I think in words, I typically think in bullet point sentences.
That said, I was so bad at English as kid that I've had to spend a lot of time learning how to write well. So I can do it if I care enough to invest the effort.
This not to say I see no value in creative writing. You can often summarise the core elements of fictional story in a couple of dozen bullet points, but the story of story isn't why we enjoy to read stories.
In my ideal world, when I'd like to make a point, I would use bullet points. But we don't live in that world so aside from my own personal notes, I rarely ever communicate in bullet points.
You pointed out correctly that house prices are bounded by incomes, then immediately made the same mistake with AI - someone has to want to pay for this stuff. It also has to compete against free models, which are not only almost as good, but they pull ahead sometimes.
Saying “the product increased in value” is only true if someone buys it!
I want the model running wherever electricity and infra is cheapest, which will likely be China; if that gets geopolitically hot, eh, suddenly a “nearby” data center will open run by “individuals” with “no connections”, magically - it will be very funny to watch.
There will be some “rising star” businessperson who somehow got an amazing deal on land and energy and just likes to spend 1/2 their time in Shenzhen or something, but the datacenter is in Vietnam or Singapore or Thailand or wherever. They might even have a US branch, to make everyone feel better!
It will collapse the market, and everyone will realize that data centers are actually worth LESS than Toyota - they’ll look more like Tulips, suddenly.
I’ve found the “freedom of speech” crowd understands freedom the least; notably, that rights come with responsibilities. They want the rights, none of the responsibilities, and to be arbiters of the rights of others (again, they really don’t understand freedom and rights).
A similarly daft group are those who believe in “states rights”, and they make the same mistake: they want states rights, unless it contradicts other things they want. It’s not a real position, they’re fascists.
It matters if an article was written by an expert or someone that only has surface knowledge about the topic. It matters if it’s written by someone talented with words or by someone that has to churn 10 articles a day for a content farm.
So clearly not all sources are equal, and that applies to LLM too.
If you spend 4h of your time writing an article on something you care about it’s likely to be interesting. If the extent of the effort you are willing to put in the topic is 10 seconds of your time to ask ChatGPT to « write an article about phrack », then just don’t bother. We can all ask our own GPTs to do it for us whenever we want.
In theory someone could iterate for 4h with ChatGPT to get to the exact words they wanted to say without having written a line of it, but unfortunately for those folks, 99% of the content generated in that way will be nice sounding emptiness, and people don’t want to read 100 pieces of BS just to find 1 good one. There is too much content online and not enough time to read it all, we gotta filter somehow, and LLM sounding prose is one of the best filter available today.
FYI, you're arguing with a petty psychopath who will threaten your life when she inevidibly loses an argument because the facts and evidence are not on her side.
Do yourself a favor and conduct a simple thought experiment that will destroy any possible argument.
We are in year 2030, four years from now. LLM or similar architecture, produces output indistinguishable from a human. It can do this already if you are good at prompting to be honest.
So you read an article and you have no way of knowing whether it is made by an LLM or whether it is made by a human.
Do you cease to read anything released post 2026 out of sheer stubbornness/stupidity or do you keep reading articles?
Because if you keep reading then you have no way of knowing, you already have read hundreds of AI generated articles without realizing. The survivorship bias has presented you with an article that is easy to see how it was made using AI.
Now the plot twist is that it is already the 2030 for simple article generation and anyone can produce short text indistinguishable from 100% manual output. Hell it was possible a year ago no problem.
So you focusing on whether the AI was used or maybe it was generated fully using some smaller local private model probably, is quite moot. It doesn't matter. It is still a bad article.
FYI, you're arguing with a petty psychopath who will threaten your life when she inevidibly loses an argument because the facts and evidence are not on her side.
Ironically, if only she would use an LLM to write her comments, then at least they wouldn't contain as many blatant factual errors and tell-tale death threats that prove she's a human.
when i say 'written by an llm' i am skipping a step. it assumes the reader knows that llm style and diction is bad. but of course there are many reasons why it is so bad.
for example, i would describe this article as grandiose, overdramatic and excessively ornate. ironically those styles show a lack of humanity.
it has vanishingly little substance. take "a poetic snapshot of a subculture forming in the shadows". this is meaningless!
it's generic, everything about the article is stating the mean belief. where is the controversy, where is the drama that would justify these massive sentences?
you can also notice that everything about an llm text has this repulsive corporate optimism, a desperation to deliver a redeeming conclusion.
so this article says, the hero meets the challenge in the journey, "We used opcode charts like musicians used sheet music. We owned the stack." oh no. we reached the bottom. but! watch out! because, we will be redeemed, "That spark is hard to find now, but it still lives in the rarest of places". how about this: no it fucking doesn't, the spark is dead, bled out and buried in a block of concrete. end of article.
i studied humanities but i hope that readers of any subject would react the same way.
So you're confirming that you publically threatened my life, as the record shows, and acknowledge that you don't retract it, and that you still intend to murder me? Understood.
May I ask when you've scheduled my execution for?
Perhaps you if you weren't so wrong all the time, you wouldn't have to threaten to kill me when you lose an argument on the facts and evidence, and had nothing better to counter with than a violent death threat. That totally undermines your argument and proves you're wrong, and a psychopath.
You think they can successfully track the smartest and most individually dangerous citizens, who have been previously vetted, and work inside the system already?
reply