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 youā€™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 cutā€™nā€™paste it into its own post ā€” thereā€™s no quota for posting and the bar really isnā€™t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many ā€œesotericā€ right wing freaks, but thereā€™s no appropriate sneer-space for them. Iā€™m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged ā€œculture criticsā€ who write about everything but understand nothing. Iā€™m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. Theyā€™re inescapable at this point, yet I donā€™t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldnā€™t be surgeons because they didnā€™t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I canā€™t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

Last weekā€™s thread

(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this)

  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    Ā·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    Donā€™t know how much this fits the community, as you use a lot of terms Iā€™m not inherently familiar with (is there a ā€œwelcome guideā€ of some sort somewhere I missed).

    Anyway, Wikipedia moderators are now realizing that LLMs are causing problems for them, but they are very careful to not smack the beehive:

    The purpose of this project is not to restrict or ban the use of AI in articles, but to verify that its output is acceptable and constructive, and to fix or remove it otherwise.

    I justā€¦ donā€™t have words for how bad this is going to go. How much work this will inevitably be. At least weā€™ll get a real world example of just how many guardrails are actually needed to make LLM text ā€œworkā€ for this sort of use case, where neutrality, truth, and cited sources are important (at least on paper).

    I hope some people watch this closely, Iā€™m sure thereā€™s going to be some gold in this mess.

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

      The purpose of this project is not to restrict or ban the use of AI in articles, but to verify that its output is acceptable and constructive, and to fix or remove it otherwise.

      Wikipediaā€™s mod team definitely havenā€™t realised it yet, but this part is pretty much a de facto ban on using AI. AI is incapable of producing output that would be acceptable for a Wikipedia article - in basically every instance, its getting nuked.

          • David Gerard@awful.systemsM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            Ā·
            26 days ago

            it is impossible for a Wikipedia editor to write a sentence on Wikipedia procedure without completely tracing the fractal space of caveats.

      • bitofhope@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        Ā·
        27 days ago

        Iā€™d like to believe some of them have, but itā€™s easier or more productive to keep giving the benefit of the doubt (or at at least pretend to) than argue the point.

    • bitofhope@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      Ā·
      27 days ago

      Welcome to the club. They say a shared suffering is only half the suffering.

      This was discussed in last weekā€™s Stubsack, but I donā€™t think we mind talking about talking the same thing twice. I, for one, do not look forward to browsing Wikipedia exclusively through pre-2024 archived versions, so I hope (with some pessimism) their disapponintingly milquetoast stance works out.

      Reading a bit of the old Reddit sneerclub can help understand some of the Awful vernacular, but otherwise itā€™s as much of a lurkmoar as any other online circlejerk. The old guard keep referencing cringe techbros and TESCREALs Iā€™ve never heard of while I still canā€™t remember which Scott A weā€™re talking about in which thread.

    • froztbyte@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      Ā·
      26 days ago

      Donā€™t know how much this fits the community, as you use a lot of terms Iā€™m not inherently familiar with (is there a ā€œwelcome guideā€ of some sort somewhere I missed)

      first impression: your post is entirely on topic, welcome to the stubsack

      techtakes is a sister sub to sneerclub (also on this instance, previously on reddit) and that one has a bit of an explanation. generally any (classy) sneerful critique of bullshit and wankery goes, modulo making space for chuds/nazis/debatelords/etc (those get shown the exit)

    • swlabr@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      Ā·
      26 days ago

      you use a lot of terms Iā€™m not inherently familiar with (is there a ā€œwelcome guideā€ of some sort somewhere I missed).

      weā€™re pretty receptive to requests for explanations of terms here, just fyi! I imagine if it begins to overwhelm commenting, a guide will be created. Unfortunately there is something of an arms race between industry buzzword generation and good sense, and we are on the side of good sense.