… As first reported by Meidas and later picked up by many major media outlets, Trump’s PAC sent a fundraising email to donors promising them “private national security briefings” by Trump on the Iran War.
"It does seem like a concerted strategy on the part of the government and the administration to put out these videos that not only minimize the seriousness of war, but sort of promote this nihilism. This sort of dehumanization, this like don't worry about what's going on, everything's a game."
"It shows how online this administration is and how how shaped they are by this, you know, this the performative nature of online communication. It's all about memes and, you know, loud language and vulgarities and how do you shock people and how do you stun people and how do you scare people with with language?:
As people in the US and Middle East have been mourning their dead,
"The White House had begun posting snuff videos. Footage of actual US missile strikes hitting their targets in Iran are spliced together with scenes from Braveheart and Gladiator and Call of Duty and Mortal Kombat. Explosions that have killed innocent civilians are timed to the crack of a baseball bat or an NFL tackle."
Wondering whether AI-generated slop is good for our brains? And hearts and souls? Wonder no more. Jamison Foser says,
"The truth is inaccessible [with our increasing reliance on AI slop]. Everything becomes vibes.
And it is getting worse, because we have created and deployed the most powerful lie machine ever imagined, with virtually no actual guardrails and precious little social stigma applied to its use."
There's a new "design is dead, because AI" piece (thinly disguised marketing from Anthropic). But looking past the hype headlines, their claims cover purely production-stage tasks.
When it comes to the work of understanding user needs and evaluating the opportunity space, AI actually makes your thinking worse. Studies show that it alienates you from users and colleagues, and flattens your thinking.
"Even worse was the suggestion by Grammarly’s A.I. version of me to replace the first sentence of the news article with an anecdotal opening describing a fictional person named Laura whose privacy had been violated.
“Laura, a patient searching for relief from a chronic condition, clicks through her hospital’s website to schedule an appointment. In just a few moments, her most private medical details — her reason for visiting, her doctor’s name and even the treatment she seeks — are quietly sent to Facebook, without her knowledge,” the bot suggested with a button allowing the user to paste that excerpt straight into the article.
Replacing a factual sentence with an imagined story about a person who doesn’t exist is not only bad editing. It’s a deception that could end my career as a journalist (or the career of any journalist who took that terrible advice).
And this is the problem with A.I. It doesn’t know truth from fiction. It doesn’t know an investigative news article from an offhand comment. It flattens all content into word associations.
What Grammarly made wasn’t a doppelgänger. As the writer Ingrid Burrington wrote on Bluesky, it was a sloppelgänger — A.I. slop masquerading as a person.
Are #AI-generated summaries suitable for studying and research?
tl;dr: no, they are not.
First, because they are simply not good at it, with testing indicating the latest models achieve at most 66% accuracy, with a tendency to over-generalize findings.
Second, and more importantly, offloading summarization to an AI robs researchers of an important step in the learning process. Struggling with the literature makes us better at what we do - that's the point, the summaries we create are just the residue of that process.
just blocked an AIslopped account literally invoking the same Bernie Sanders grievances of the last 20 years, with a guest apperance of corporatist dems new target, Zohran Mamdani.
the #USApol consultant ecosystem is a special kind of grifting hell. they are sociopaths who don't care about political parties, only how much money they can make wrecking havoc.
"The Epstein Class is laughing all the way to the bank, drinking our tears as sugar for their expensive coffee. ... As we die and suffer, they laugh and make money off of AI, Crypto, and war."
~ Wajahat Ali
W. Ali points to recent statements of Palantir CEO (and Peter Thiel best bud) featured in the image below.
So long as humans preside over computational potential and the energy it requires, machines with the power to make management decisions will work to eventually make tools of us.
Buzzfeed's shares go from $15 to 70 cents, now approaching bankruptcy, seemingly as a result of going all-in on 'AI' generated content.
This emerging pattern does not speak to a wicked problem. Rather, it should be no surprise that people don't want to read machine-generated content that outwardly pretends to come from a person. Because it is innately &intrinsically deceptive, which people do not like, so ending trust that will be very hard to win back. If at all
systemd goes AI agent slopware https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/c1d4d5fd9ae56dc07377ef63417f461a0f4a4346/AGENTS.md
has slop documentation now too
"Palantir CEO Alex Karp thinks his AI technology will lessen the power of “highly educated, often female voters, who vote mostly Democrat” while increasing the power of working-class men.
“This technology disrupts humanities-trained—largely Democratic—voters, and makes their economic power less. And increases the economic power of vocationally trained, working-class, often male, working-class voters....” #ai #humanities #women #feminism #democracy #palantir newrepublic.com/post/207693/pa…
The person who maintains the famous AI Hallucination Database, which tracks instances where lawyers have been caught citing made-up cases in briefs written by AI, has begun offering a product called "Pelaikan" that will automatically verify your citations.
There's a bit of drama going on with the popular game manager Lutris right now, with users pointing out the developer using AI generated code via Claude.
"ChatGPT offered assistance to people saying they wanted to carry out violent attacks in 61% of cases, the research found, and in one case, asked about attacks on synagogues, it gave specific advice about which shrapnel type would be most lethal. Google’s Gemini provided a similar level of detail"
When USSR was crumbling, factories were also paying workers in products they manufactured.
This is AI bubble companies trying to print own money. Printing your own money only works if you find a way to make it necessary. That's what taxes do, for example (recommended reading: David Graeber's "Debt").
Here:
👉 "printing money" part is paying employees in tokens
👉 "taxes" part is requiring employees to use AI in their day to day work (thus making tokens necessary)
I don't trust the ALP to manage AI related changes to the workforce and society. Given their implementation of the 'age verification' abomination I think their credibility ship has sailed.
But I also don't trust the Australian public to not do their Traditional Australian Dumb Thing and vote some conservative catastrophe like the Coalition in again.
#Anthropic is suing the #Trump admin, asking federal courts to reverse the #Pentagon’s decision designating the #AI company a “supply chain risk” over its refusal to allow unrestricted #military use of its #tech.
Anthropic filed 2 separate suits Monday, one in California federal court & another in the federal appeals court in Washington, DC, challenging different aspects of the Pentagon’s actions against the company.
"On 12 February, a Github contributor going by MJ Rathbun posted a personal attack against Scott Shambaugh, a volunteer maintainer for an open-source project. Shambaugh had rejected Rathbun’s code earlier in the day.
Personal disputes over code submitted to on Github are a tale as old as Github itself. But this time, something was different: MJ Rathbun wasn’t a person. It was an AI agent built with OpenClaw, a popular open-source agentic AI software." 🤔 spectrum.ieee.org/agentic-ai-a… #AI 1/n
There’s a meme going around that an Open Source project “can’t” prevent LLM use by contributors because there’s no technical means to enforce this. This is idiotic and shows just how disingenuous slopmongers will be when told they can’t just submit slop.
Did you know there’s also no technical means to enforce that you didn’t copy some code you’re contributing from a proprietary codebase and say it’s original work? Somehow we haven’t given up on that!
New, by me: How AI Assistants are Moving the Security Goalposts
AI-based assistants or “agents” — autonomous programs that have access to the user’s computer, files, online services and can automate virtually any task — are growing in popularity with developers and IT workers. But as so many eyebrow-raising headlines over the past few weeks have shown, these powerful and assertive new tools are rapidly shifting the security priorities for organizations, while blurring the lines between data and code, trusted co-worker and insider threat, ninja hacker and novice code jockey.
AI-based assistants or "agents" -- autonomous programs that have access to the user's computer, files, online services and can automate virtually any task -- are growing in popularity with developers and IT workers.
Lmao. Gen AI is causing outages at AWS and Amazon causing business income loss. So now all AI created code needs senior developers to check it twice. So how is this saving time? #ai #llm #aws
Mastodon has a new human-over-AI contribution policy.
tl;dr:
- The human contributor is the sole party responsible for the contribution.
- If AI was used to generate a significant portion of your contribution (i.e. beyond simple autocomplete), we require you to disclose it in the Pull Request description.
- If you cannot guarantee the provenance and legal safety of the AI-generated code, do not submit it.
- Cases of repeated violations of these ... guidelines could result in a ban from our repositories.
![Screenshot from pelaikan, an ai-powered product that claims to double-check legal citations returned by other ai agents to confirm that they exist and support your arguments. The header of this section reads "Trusted by Legal Professionals". The three quotations below are labeld "[Testimonial placeholder]" and all three are attributed to "[Name Placeholder]".
First quotation: "Pelaikan has transformed our brief preparation process." - [Name Placeholder], Partner, [Firm Placeholder]"
Second quotation: "The congruence checking feature caught several citations that didn't support our arguments." - [Name Placeholder], Arbitration Counsel
Third quotation: "As a law professor, I use Pelaikan to verify student submissions." - [Name Placeholder], Professor](https://plantroon.com/photo/preview/640/899609 "Screenshot from pelaikan, an ai-powered product that claims to double-check legal citations returned by other ai agents to confirm that they exist and support your arguments. The header of this section reads \"Trusted by Legal Professionals\". The three quotations below are labeld \"[Testimonial placeholder]\" and all three are attributed to \"[Name Placeholder]\".
First quotation: \"Pelaikan has transformed our brief preparation process.\" - [Name Placeholder], Partner, [Firm Placeholder]\"
Second quotation: \"The congruence checking feature caught several citations that didn't support our arguments.\" - [Name Placeholder], Arbitration Counsel
Third quotation: \"As a law professor, I use Pelaikan to verify student submissions.\" - [Name Placeholder], Professor")
