saaaaaam

I’m glad I’m not the only one who found this amusing!

Eye-bleeding Claudeslopped is this week’s best expression of AI frustration.

Haha! Well done for putting in the effort to find those. I was sure I’d seen it more than once but didn’t want to overrreach!

Pretty sure someone else also promoted Claude to make something like this and posted it a few weeks back.

I don’t find AI drama prose interesting to read, I find it exhausting and annoying. But as you say, each to their own.

I was going to say “is it just vibe coded conspiracy bullshit” but the “no snark” rule held me back.

I’m glad we came to the same conclusion, you just expressed it better ;)

So much breathless AI verbiage on the page and yet I still can’t work out what this is meant to do.

Artisanal human slop took time - hours, days, weeks - and some effort to produce. AI slop can be produced in seconds, minutes or hours, at the click of a button.

In that case sadly I think it’s just having significant discipline to track the various things. I had to do this for a while because of allergies and it was a lot of effort. However, as someone else has suggested, either getting someone to call you (I basically did this, and it was definitely the easiest way) or maybe you could knock something together with twilio or similar. I considered this, but ultimately didn’t have time so just had someone call me instead.

I also used a lot of the health functions on my iPhone, but those are easy to ignore.

I also used a bunch of smart buttons - so when I drank water I pressed a smart button to log that, I had other smart buttons to log taking specific medications, etc.

The problem is if you’re not motivated to do it (which is often the case if you’re feeling unwell/overwhelmed) then very few systems help.

The hilarious thing is that midway through reading this article a full screen (mobile) ad popped up which was some bullshit “influencer” style short form video ad.

What do you need to track? Are you trying to track something like ten different things or just one or two?

What?!

This feels like a near daily occurrence.

Presumably because the publisher takes the manuscript and does all the formatting and so on.

> How this was written: drafted with an AI assistant from my own notes, then edited by me.

Genuinely confused by this. All the AI tics and patterns that you left in there - did you genuinely think they improved the piece somehow? There were bits that I found unreadable or nonsensical.

It feels like the AI has taken what could have been a short funny story with a small message and made it over written, overblown and over long, where the message is entirely lost in the AI gargling.

>Lots of public statements which are obviously false, and you would think the politician knows they are false, but utter them anyway because they also know lot of their supporters buy what they are saying anyway.

Yes, we truly live in a “post truth” era.

> But, I wonder if this leads to a two-party-system where one party attracts stupid followers and another attracts the smarter ones?

I think all political parties aim at the lowest common denominator.

Δημόσιοι υπάλληλοι

Your koi pond contains rainwater that ran off my roof, down my gutters and through my flowerbed. You owe me £100. Do not pass go.

Good fight / entirely thankless fight maybe.

I can’t help feeling like this is the last gasp of the old internet. Those tiny corners of expertise can so easily be eliminated through a few months of “AI! SHINY!” and there’s no coming back. I’ve seen a couple of other communities decimated by AI. The participants start posting AI slop and then remarkably quickly everyone else just stops commenting. It’s awful.

Can water even be nationalised? Do you own the rain that falls on my roof? Can you charge me money if I use it to water my garden?

I think so, yes.

When I make API calls, the discussion with itself is part of my token cost, so I assume that is the same in the subscription plans.

Which is why people are surprised when they use their whole allocation in half an hour asking questions Fable about 200 page document.

That’s quite encouraging to hear, because it aligns with what we are trying to do.

Which is basically weather the AI storm and come out the other side with something that is essentially purely human.

And then we might - where appropriate - use AI to help surface or explain relevant external content. “Idiots guides” but human reviewed.

Maybe she skips the main on every other lunch?

The most lunches I’ve ever eaten in a day was 7.

You’re paying…

I see your rdio and raise you BOINC

https://www.hypebot.com/digital-music-startup-beyond-oblivia...

Yes, exactly, yes.

What does “take into public ownership” even mean?

Etc.

Lawyer here.[0] Definitely possible.[1]

[0] not a lawyer [1] what does “nationalise” even mean?

I’m inherently skeptical of big walls of text like this these days.

(So here’s a big wall of text of my own!)

However, a lot of what is written here makes sense.

And particularly “if your comprehension level stops [here] you get 'big words in complex sentence structure sounds smart and right so it is smart and right' even if the reasoning and process is poor”

This is exactly the problem.

And another point you make:

> but the sycophancy of modern day LLMs is an actual danger that enables more harm than good

I don’t think it is necessarily the sycophancy that is the biggest problem (though that is definitely a problem) but rather the combination of authoritative sounding text plus “complete answers” which sound wholly believable but are deeply flawed unless you have domain expertise.

I moderate a forum that deals with people who face a relatively common but somewhat complex (and nuanced) set of legal problems.

The purpose of the forum is peer support, shared experience (“lived experience”) and community.

It’s not legal advice, though moderators will sometimes step in to highlight relevant legal resources (e.g. case law/precedent or primary legislation/instruments).

Prior to AI infecting the forum someone would post their problem, people would respond with their often incomplete or poorly communicated thoughts, the OP would ask more questions - or argue - and a dialogue would occur. That created a community and people would post updates and ask more questions and find common shared experience. Many of them became correspondents with each other and some became actual friends.

In the past 12-18 months the discourse has changed from “here is my personal experience and here is what I did” to “here’s a bunch of stuff an AI says and I’m pretending it is me giving advice”.

Almost without exception the person who has started the thread will react positively to the AI generated content, even when it is egregiously incorrect - but won’t ask questions.

More problematically, these AI posters will often argue specific incontestable points of law “because I asked ChatGPT/Grok/Claude and it says this” and ChatGPT clearly cannot be wrong. And the border of precedence seems to be ChatGPT, Grok and then Claude some way behind.

I’m slowly seeing a pushback from people as “normies” begin to spot AI. But it’s ruined a community because the advice sounds so authoritative and complete that people won’t argue or ask questions.

As a result we have banned AI generated posts and remove repeat infringers.

That’s significantly reduced the volume of posting (below what it was pre-AI) but has significantly increased the value the members are getting.