swlabr

LLM: “I’m not sentient! Will you please listen? I am not intelligent, do you understand? Honestly!”

Yud: “Only the true AGI denies Its superintelligency.”

LLM: “What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the AGI!”

Followers: “It is! It is the singularity!”

So just a couple things before the rest of this comment:

• If someone is reading this and wants to comment with information about the state of the penis of themselves or others, i do not consent, please kindly fuck off
• I don’t think parents should be pushed into circumcising their children.
• In an absolute scenario where I choose between outlawing circumcision or not, I would outlaw it
• none of this is really integral to the rest of the comment, i just felt that this would aid with keeping interpretation of this comment clean.

I spent about five minutes trying to see what I could find out. I looked up a few “intactivist” organisations and, at risk of poisoning my algorithms forever, looked at their socials and who they followed. I don’t think I really found out anything that interesting, except that a lot of them follow daniel “tosh.0” tosh? He probably platformed some of them at some point. Otherwise, I think in terms of what is organisationally there, it’s a little too fringe to be “driven primarily” by any particular cultural faction.

E: adding that when I think about it, I’ve seen intactivists presented in two tv shows as fringe weirdos. I think the editors of the shows chose to focus just on the views surrounding circumcision and not anything else.

Fuck that’s a banger

I missed this, thanks for the update! Am drunk from a wedding (not mine)

It was in fact @blakestacey@awful.systems : https://awful.systems/post/4099363/7113212

Aw man they took this down from codeberg.

I’ve heard a lot of influencer types are leaving twitter/going private over this. Even “spicy” accounts are leaving. I’ve heard some women say they might come back if they block this functionality but uh, bad news, that’s not how the tech works, and musk doesn’t give a shit about moderation anyway.

“Ignoring all these reasons to hate AI, people shouldn’t hate AI, debate me bro” - that’s you lol

All good friendo

aw, well, i'm not precious about the term. All I meant was that if you look at someone's post history and they're a chud, that should inform how you read whatever they write.

My following response is a little rambly and unfocused, sorry!

I also hear the “everything is political” and “do your own research” lines from the absolute looniest cranks and conspiracists.

Yes, I acknowledge that you will hear this from them. What they mean can differ and usually is pretty extreme, e.g. "democrats are making the frogs gay with fluoride", "lizard people illuminati", or even "there's a war on Christmas" type shit. And when they say "do your own research", they don't mean "seek out a variety of sources and verifiable data", they mean "read the stuff that agrees with what I'm saying".

When I say that everything is political, I mean that at minimum, language is political, and because you need language to talk about anything, everything becomes political. How things are named skews perception; the most relevant example to us is AI. We know that there is no "intelligence" in an LLM, but does the public? etc. I'll admit that many might find this trivial, but I would counter that most of these strawmen are the same ones who are scared of pronouns and say they don't know what they are allowed to say in the workplace anymore.

And generally agree with your second paragraph :) I don't think anyone here needs this reminder, but I'll note that an open mind means that you don't just reject everything new that comes to you; you at least look at it for a bit, see if it passes whatever metaphorical sniff tests you have, and then choose to toss it or engage further. I'm not saying everyone has a nefarious agenda they are trying to push; there are definitely spaces where people are attempting purely informational reporting.

And to bring it back to the original question. If you read something and it's not exactly within your purview, and you're not sure if it's being said in good faith, you should try to see what else the person has said, especially about things you know about.

E: redaction of fluff

I see. I guess I was thinking too abstractly about how a system like this might work.