The witch hunt kind of thing that will never cease to end. 3 burnout

Critical theory as been buggered. Delusion and I'm following Gossip Goblin now, What the bugger, am I in the seizing the means of production.

I find this particular culture around the internet garbage. Ever since the scraping in 2022 and the ruckus of the concetartists well poisoned by the nickles Kotch, They have there own 'lab', I'm appealing the the fundamental scripture of copyright that's intepreted, copyright infringement ain't theft. They continue to act dishonest, so they don't have the undeserved attention.

I can't convince the public opinon with the essay I'm still writing and editing personally.



Along with informal groups over the nebulous progressives of anti-or-pro this or that.

I hate the 2022 left now.

Hate it, it's corrupted beyond beleif, laborwashing mass media captal and then they act shocked as some didney lobbying group takes there rights away collectivly.

Too clueless to care, they don't care 

What the bangers are we doing now, with the slop-hunts and we are never going to relise our own that it was the case with my abstention and identifying as a Cyberfoundherentist.

Because my own cognition can do that, I can make the names of marvel and become a new occupation of a wizard to a divine a new truth out of the confusion happening within the hollywood/mainstream media and the SV wonking it up it populism, as I try to divine a new carve of identity.

I so wanna be unwoke and post-left sentiment, that's making me feel more alienated what, to use marxism to use copyright as a revolutionary force.

Then the mutuals look at me like this then unfollow? IDK, I'm on thin ice with all this to work on with this matter.

It's like, I just don't know what maximising copyright will do any work, Expand copyright and IP law to protect us! To Protect of workers. Labourwashing bad actors of megacopyright.

unite

unnite, like as if there the holders of attention

what am to do now as it's the way it's always been, trying to get a long down with the attention wheel and now it's the time to satisfy the manner which brings to the better world.

yet its more e-begging.

more empty space

witth that. do I find a lot of artists annoying, pompous that they don't know the speculate execution of comfy ui and playing with local models, and that experience is a stupid war by it all

do some research please.

A lot of the illustrator repeating certain reactionary ideas that I try

Had a brush with less wrong

 tis yeah, uncurable porn brain

Oh good article by verysain AI

The Lantern Parade

Spacing out with minimal, have been browsing through Substack and I need a space from it all. I have been over-reading and over-indexing on all the things, wanting to consume all the knowledge in the world.

I'm not really sure about my social science and how much LLMs have affected the space, along with the many, many LLMs illustrations that I happen to do over there in my free educational resources and this site meant for educational purposes. 

I know I don't sound like a tech bro, but honestly, it's too basic a Marxist to believe in the capitalist concept of the bubble, and more sophisticated sociological understandings.. It's going to be our segment, and that is challenging the anci'en regime of our politics.

Now I've got a new secterianism to worry about, or ignore, yeah ignore. The one joining with the republic of imperative and protestant work ethic.

With the way social media bificurates with random passerbys, I'm going to be a really button and that this 'bubble' will go. As if that will go

But I managed to carry the lion, and that was a delight to do. I've obsessed little as now I've got too much social media on my mind.

I've got a lot of thumbnail sketches and 3 images that I've still not posted out of my schedule, Always reactive, trying to control and persuade the unpersuedable inthin the blogs back and froth.

On Classifiers and Disclosures

I see their use is more common now.

Let the games commence for the scarcity of attention.

TO RUMMMMBLE!!

Peeps are paranoid about commodification; these are the algorithms and heuristics which linguistics has toppled too. And now they're checking through this. This has been checked adversarially, intuitively and counter-intuitively through a Socratic construction, with some autocomplete along with some other thoughts.

Pangram and others don't work. Or the self-abnegation of personal responsibility. Shall I quote?

Anyhow, here are two articles on why they are not to be trusted. Oh yeah, did I tell you the classifiers don't work in and of themselves? Well, you are the product. More on the math here.

This one below is my favourite refutation.

Wow, look at that math.

Including a linguistic lesson on negative construction.

“It's not X. It's why” is a linguistic construction, more specifically, a “contrastive negation followed by a corrective assertion.” It's part of a rich “grammatical context for negated restrictives in English.” Olli O. Silvennoinen wrote an entire doctoral dissertation of 131 pages on contrastive negation."

Other the times, I won't ad hominion him on other Then it got to these two paywalled ones from likely a LLM user.

This tech blogger knows that moral panic won't last.

"Moral panics are largely temporary. Almost everything we were sure would rot our culture, our brands, and the world around us became background noise within a generation. Calculators were going to destroy math; now a kid pulls out a phone to split a bill, and nobody bats an eye. Spell-check was a crutch that would make us all illiterate, and Wikipedia was not a real source, and typing out your essay instead of handwriting it meant you hadn’t learned a thing, and Photoshop meant you could never trust an image again, and Auto-tune was the death of music. Every one of these things caused a moral panic, with op-eds and hand wringing, and - for better, and in some cases absolutely for worse - every one of them is now so normal that the panic feels archaic."

This was the earlier with how it interconnects with the witch hunts

"No, the folks getting hurt are the writers. Not only the ones who are tarred - all of us. Every single ___-forsaken one of us. We are all made smaller by the pursuit of unproven and unprovable purity. Whether Ballard used AI or not (and she says she didn’t, and naive or not I’m inclined to throw my cynicism to the wind and just take her at face value, and you can mock me if you like), the punishment landed before any verdict was reached, because no verdict can ever be reached. Not beyond a reasonable doubt. Never beyond a reasonable doubt.

She’s not going to be the last. This whole setup, where anyone can accuse any writer of using AI based on gut feeling, and broken detection tools get treated as proof and publishers fold at the first hint of controversy because the PR cost outweighs the book’s revenue, is going to grind up a lot of people into a fleshy, bloody, bony paste. Most of them will be small-time writers, debut authors, indie-published folks without the platform or the money to fight back."

Other than the ad hominnoms Llms really are the anti-social media being a positive thing. IDC, documentation is documentation. 

(Off Tangent, he does try the cult thing; that's a fandom thing.)

So, what do we do? Trust, trust that it is. (I wonder how much that paradox catches on)

Oh, Looks like I'm less offended, it's merely going to be a slap occurrence. I'm okay with it. Since the megacopyright ain't going to come as a cyber risk.

Link to to concluding article.

"If your stance is instead that AI is evil and so is looking for AI, then ultimately you’re contributing to the sloppification of the internet. You’re making it harder for people who write their own text to distinguish themselves, and providing cover for authors who are definitely not writing their own text."

Now onto Disclosures.

To requote, this is what the copyright maximalists want.

The intelligentsia and academic affiliated sort attempt to know the peddlers of elsagate of old and will attempt to make it out. Yeah, I agree somewhat.

Applys to Human banality/kitsch/kruft too. I don't want to be branded as a kruft peddler as with there terms

So, how does one stop being branded as a peddler of banality? The natural touch? The manner of idealism that is made. To intelligent idealism and the intelligent material/physical that we can make it to the other way. Or our we are the banality. I'm not adopting that term (Goyslop) btw,  this could be a bad take. Since I cannot tell at times and my intake has others, yet not reactionary Professional manergial class impulse comes.

I opine, It's the overflow of information over impact/insight and the emptiness of love given from the lack of love with the communicative commodification of the streams of attention I get with the scrolls and intakes. There's no winning yes, or do you look the fated stream in the eye since this could be all lack on capability?

Well, I don't wanna judge.

 The cat and mouse game between humanisers and classifiers, it's alignment and capabilities ALL OVER AGAIN!

Oh no winning, pangram lab as studies apparently proving it's not ablest, and the reactionary token supporters will be using to circumnavigate and there and they have labs now since it's like they got it 

So even then, even if Pangram was right, I don't want to be a part of it since I'm going through existential risks right now So are the essay's I've collected and wandered.

"When an author trained in that tradition sits down to write, tightening clauses, pruning redundant syllables, and balancing periodic sentences, the detector flags the text as synthetic. The classifier encounters clean syntax and low lexical surprise, and it panics. It cannot conceive that a human writer spent fifty years mastering rhetorical economy. It assumes that if a sentence is balanced, a machine must have stamped it out.

The perverse inversion is complete: a disciplined writer with five decades of craft is flagged as 100% AI, while a plagiarist running synthetic prose through an automated “humaniser” tool scores a pristine 100% Human."

"Harlan Krumholz, EIC of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Professor of Medicine at Yale, just published an editorial explaining why JACC doesn’t require AI disclosures. Authors remain responsible for what they publish. AI used to conduct research still belongs in the methods. I agree. A journal can collect a disclosure from authors but that doesn’t help them get any better at checking whether their conclusions are supported by their results. An editor and reviewer still has to check the evidence and references. Humans can mis-specify a model parameter or cite the wrong paper in support of a flimsy argument at just as high or higher rate than AI."

So is the microblogs. Thanks reactionary left.

Oh.

Slop Jacketing? Well, that's we may become. Or our responsability so get the mega-copyright censorshhip

Since of stealth-gpt and pangram frumps, well yeah, agree. There's a trust penalty the moment one mentions ai in a positive or neutral context. It's a crap shoot.

From reddit to microblogs, to the way the works

So now with the benchmarks with all the tests to let it go with a back'n forth. So it's going to be Dead Audience theory and Panagorium

Yeah it sucks. It's going to get messy. I F**king hate polemics. Over this.

So what if these are put through claude and chatgpt, your here and you are reading this and now. The PMT reactionary Artisan impulse that strong?? Great, with the ritualistic negativity of the social media, will this lead into a closed internet'n all.

"The history of DRM is basically an endless cycle of companies inventing increasingly sophisticated locks and then the internet shouting, “Oh! Puzzle!” and immediately cracking them open. Hitman 2 shipped with a new version of Denuvo in 2018, and pirates cracked it so quickly that the crack was available before the game was officially released. Make that make sense."

So back and forth and back and forth until the copyright maxers shut it and then back again.

Yay. Its gone generative adversial network

Even trying to brave to brace the disclosure. As with the intelligentsia.

So I'm at an impasse of what to do, There is a silly game of popular ideas that are to be swept up.

So Entertain me with the added detector market with various humanisers and classifiers arms racing 

Bonus, Pleometric has watermark rot, our artifice are laid bare. Along with taking the MIT advice So it's a back and forth of academics, and a smug xwitter artist dogpile awaiting to happen.