okay so i read this whole thing and what i am getting is he made a bot to essentially vandalize wikipedia because it was easier than learning markdown.

[dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.org]

@nora an aside to your main point, but i feel like there used to be a lot of those things - printable quick references for programs or languages or subject specific unit conversions that were formatted to be cut out and tapped to the bezel around a monitor. Maybe modern monitors just don't need as much supporting hardware so the bezel doesn't reliably have enough real estate, I dunno...

[nadiapurge@musician.social]

@nora have they considered.. NOT editing a platform they are not qualified for, trained for, or suited for??

[desert@social.foxtail.garden]

@nora That was a rough article xD

[funkula@goblin.camp]

@nora yes, but also: the guy interviewing him is really fucking stupid too

[nonehitwonder@tenforward.social]

@nora describing needing to know how to do a thing as a barrier to entry for doing that thing is the dumbest thing I've heard this minute.

[wehpudicabok@kind.social]

@nora i kept waiting for him to say he fact-checked the stuff his program was outputting and of course that moment never came. even setting aside the AI use it's astonishing how little respect these people have for other humans, that they think we'd appreciate having unverified information just dumped on the site

[ticho@mas.to]

@nora Look at the silver lining - the Wikipedia moderation system seems to work, it caught this moron and stopped him.

What an interview with a moron is doing in a public article, that I don't understand. Back in my days, village idiots were shunned, or at least ignored, not given a megaphone.

[nonehitwonder@tenforward.social]

@nora I shouldn't be surprised that the same people who think "practicing at drawing for many years" is the same as "gatekeeping art" find the requirement to pursue knowledge in order to competently do a thing to be oppressive.

[leadore@sunny.garden]

@nora

Jacobs: I basically encouraged it and gave it approval if it ever asked me. But basically everything it did was on its own. Yeah. It sounds crazy. I mean, it sounds insane.

Adair: It sounds insane in the sense that you’re describing talking with something that is being generated from lines of code originally.

[bridgeenjoyer@gamepad.club]

@nonehitwonder @nora this is ai slops entire purpose lol. Make the people even dumber. If thats even possible.

[purpleglazedbeaver@mstdn.dk]

@nonehitwonder @nora They'll probably think "practicing to read and write" is the same as "gatekeeping knowledge"

[misterdave@tilde.zone]

@nora computer trained on human thought
=> computer thinks like human
(flawed)

computer has no interiority (true) + computer thinks like human (flawed) => human has no interiority

they really can't grasp the idea that human thought is more than their statistical word cloud sleight of hand.

[nonehitwonder@tenforward.social]

@bridgeenjoyer @nora it's definitely working, and quite alarmingly on some of the smartest people I've ever met IRL.

[babblinggeek@infosec.exchange]

@nora sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.