I hope he eventually dyes his hair the same color, too.

Either one of them. It would be weird either way.

Well, now I’m gonna. You can’t tell me what to do! /s

This “article” reads like a long-form cover letter for a job application. Thanks for enshittifying everything, Jagan, and using your bullshit “skills” to go for that cash grab before the bubble pops.

If this article wasn’t written by one of Jagan’s LLMs and was in fact written by a real person (and I would be shocked to find that it was), the author should feel bad and demand a refund on their education.

The response is wrong. AI isn’t recognizing people’s emotions, it’s inferring them. It’s not “smart” enough to recognize emotions, and we don’t need the dystopian nightmare of a computer thinking you’re malicious when you’re annoyed or being sarcastic.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Avoid sites like Fiver, though. Lots of AI bullshit pretending to be real art.

It is a stupid world where people pay to have a megalomaniac billionaire’s megaphone inserted into their daily lives.

What? The “strongman defender of freedum of spech” Melon Husk is actually a weak little baby that folded like a wet cardboard box? Wow, I’m shocked.

Maybe connecting a server to your network, giving it implicit trust, and leaving the default login credentials was a dumb move…

There’s at least eight AITA communities.

I think it’s the responsible thing to do, sure, but I feel like there’s a problem of scalability with LLMs. That was more of my point.

The problem with that analogy is that eggs are what they are. Chickens and farmers aren’t choosing to make eggs with certain levels of protein, fat, and cholesterol.

Meanwhile social media is what the various companies make of it. Social media itself isn’t necessarily the problem, it’s that the companies that wield it have malicious intent (read: capitalism), and humanity in general is clearly too stupid to control itself such that we can consume it in a healthy way.

The punishment shouldn’t fall upon the consumers, it should fall upon the manufacturers who have both the power to make a positive change and the knowledge that their current actions are detrimental.

There is something wrong with your tech if you need your own nuclear plant to run it.

I mean, it’s better than coal, but still.

And books

Especially those by CS Lewis and JRR Tolkein.

Honestly, this is the question people should be asking in response. I totally get the gut reaction against censorship, but I don’t think anyone would agree that Facebook, Xitter, etm. are innocent, neutral parties in all of this.

Part of the issue (as the article points out) is that those companies have been allowed to essentially craft people’s internal narrative, often amplifying our worst impulses and inclinations—all in service of making the black line go up for investors.

So is banning social media for teens the correct path forward? Maybe in the short term, but until we direct the governance to the companies creating the problems in the first place, we’re almost certainly going to have this conversation again in the future.

And D&D

It’s still an ad, intentional or not, mainly because of the unrestrained, almost hyperbolic positivity. It sounds almost exactly like a pitch to investors, assuring them that they can invest in this totally-not-a-fad tech scheme. Also, it’s a wall of text…

Which is exactly what I’d expect from a LLM that doesn’t actually comprehend what it’s writing but instead plagiarizes and amalgamates businesses pitches and internet fanboy screed.

It’s not a copyright suit, it’s a patent suit. So it’s indeed just like the Apple suit, though what patents were infringed upon is still unknown as of now.

Eat shit, Nintendo. I hope you lose and experience the Streisand effect.

No, I just thought they were vaguely similar enough words to make a dumb internet joke.