Need to make a primal scream without gathering footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh facts of Awful youā€™ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cutā€™nā€™paste it into its own post ā€” thereā€™s no quota for posting and the bar really isnā€™t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many ā€œesotericā€ right wing freaks, but thereā€™s no appropriate sneer-space for them. Iā€™m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged ā€œculture criticsā€ who write about everything but understand nothing. Iā€™m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. Theyā€™re inescapable at this point, yet I donā€™t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldnā€™t be surgeons because they didnā€™t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I canā€™t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

  • mountainriver@awful.systems
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    Ā·
    5 months ago

    I thought that was Hirvox point, that the NPC meme now goes hand in hand with Chan shittery because the NPC meme allows for an easy format to say that other people are not real people. With the added bonus of a built-in ā€œjust jokingā€ defence.

    • gerikson@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      Ā·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I see echoes of it when idiots discuss ChatGPT being AGI - ā€œitā€™s at the level of the average (dumb) human, so itā€™s AGIā€. Implicit is that the average human isnā€™t just not intelligent, but unaware of reality in a way that makes them like NPCs in computer games.

      ā€”-

      Edit hereā€™s an example, no source because I donā€™t want to start a dogpile.

      If you concede that there exist humans that are bullshit in the same way that ChatGPT is, then I donā€™t think that argument against ChatGPTā€™s sentience is gonna be particularly persuasive either.

      If you say ā€œChatGPT doesnā€™t actually thinkā€ and later on, ā€œand some humans donā€™t eitherā€ - that weakens the strength of the first assertion by a lot, imo.

      I mean, if ChatGPT is only sentient to the degree that the least sentient (conscious) human is, then weā€™re still talking about AGI.

      • deborah@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        Ā·
        5 months ago

        If you concede that there exist humans that are bullshit in the same way that ChatGPT is

        If you concede that cats are made of marmalade and always win Texas Hold 'Em games, then I donā€™t think the argument against squaring the circle holds up.

    • Hirvox@mastodon.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      Ā·
      5 months ago

      @mountainriver @froztbyte Yes, and if confronted the memelord can retreat into the more palatable-in-polite-company form of ā€œthey just repeat what theyā€™re told _as if_ they were reprogrammable and without any individual thoughtā€. And _clearly_ the confronter is one of them, because they didnā€™t recognize this important nuance, thus proving the point.

      • froztbyte@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        Ā·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        such people are not much different from movie sharks: you boop ā€˜em on the nose to make them go away