Want to wade into the sandy surf of the abyss? 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 Awful you’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 cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
All participants in the Stubsack, including awful.systems regulars and those joining from elsewhere, are reminded that this is not debate club. Anyone tempted by the possibility of debate-club behavior is encouraged to touch your nearest grass immediately. We are here to sneer, not to bicker: This is a place to mock the outside world, not to settle grand matters of ideology, unless the latter is done in an extraordinarily amusing way.
US engaging in quantum socialism:
New research coordinated by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and led by the BBC has found that AI assistants – already a daily information gateway for millions of people – routinely misrepresent news content no matter which language, territory, or AI platform is tested. […] 45% of all AI answers had at least one significant issue.
-
31% of responses showed serious sourcing problems – missing, misleading, or incorrect attributions.
-
20% contained major accuracy issues, including hallucinated details and outdated information.
-
Gemini performed worst with significant issues in 76% of responses, more than double the other assistants, largely due to its poor sourcing performance.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2025/new-ebu-research-ai-assistants-news-content
And yet the BBC still has a Programme Director for “Generative AI” who gets trotted out to say “We want these tools to succeed”. No, we don’t, you blithering bellend.
@blakestacey @BlueMonday1984 I also want my Perpetual Motion Machine and Circle-Squaring Algorithm to succeed, but what are ya gonna do? 🤷♀️
-
New paper on LLMs just dropped, titled LLMs Can Get “Brain Rot”!
Currently a novelty at this point, but could prove useful to make the likes of Iocaine and Nepenthes more effective - especially since the paper notes:
the damage is multifaceted in changing the reasoning patterns and is persistent against large-scale post-hoc tuning.
It does also suggest doing some actual quality control to prevent damage to the LLMs, but that sure ain’t happening
Watched a debate between Emily M. Bender and Sébastien Bubeck — an OpenAI researcher — from March. As usual, Dr. Bender fucking rules. Bubeck struck me as an idiot and kind of an ass.
Another attempt to platform fascists has cropped up in FOSS, and Drew DeVault’s talked all about it. Featuring our good friend Curtis Yarvin.
of course the organization I know primarily for platforming fascists and astroturfing on YouTube was secretly an even worse grift and somehow tied in with Yarvin, why wouldn’t it be
given that Rossmann’s at the head of this thing too, I’m starting to regret not taking GrapheneOS (who, notably, were also a target for this grift) seriously when they said Rossmann’s involved in a bunch of terrible shit. the right to repair deserves a better figurehead.
I don’t think we’ve ever talked about it but AI is shitting all over the tattoo industry. Listening to a podcast rn (Beneath the Skin) and the hosts are really not keen on the LLMs lol.
(I’m a week out from my next one woo)
The idea that AI will be a boon for searching the mathematical literature is undermined somewhat by how it shits the bed there too.
Every time I hear a moderate AI argument (e.g. AI will be an aid for searching literature or writing code), it’s like, “Look, it’s impressive that the AI managed to do this. Sure, it took about three dozen prompts over five hours, made me waste another five hours because it generated some completely incorrect nonsense that I had to verify, produced an answer that was much lower quality than if I had just searched it up myself, and boiled two lakes in the process. You should acknowledge that there is something there, even if it did take a trillion dollars of hardware and power to grind the entire internet and all books and scientific papers into a viscous paste. Your objections are invalid because I’m sure things are gonna improve because Progress.”
I am doubly annoyed when I turn my back and they switch back to spouting nonsense about exponential curves and how AI is gonna be smarter than humans at literally everything.
Wouldn’t f(x) = x^2 + 1 be a counterexample to “any entire (differentiable everywhere) function that is never zero must be constant”? Or are some terms defined differently in complex analysis than in the math I learned?
entire always means holomorphic on the whole complex plane
It’s worth noting that, unlike a real function, a complex function that is differentiable in a neighborhood is infinitely differentiable in that neighborhood. An informal intuition behind this: in the reals, for a limit to exist, the left and right limit must agree. In C, the limit from every direction must agree. Thus, a limit existing in C is “stronger” than it existing in R.
Edit: wikipedia pages on holomorphism and analyticity (did I spell this right) are good
flaviat explained why your counterexample is not correct. But also, the correct statement (Liouville’s theorem) is that a bounded entire function must be constant.
Or Picard’s little theorem, which says that if an entire function misses two points (e.g. is never 0 or 1), then that function must be constant.
Who is flaviat? I don’t see that handle on this lemmy or Greg Egan’s mastodon account, and Egan just re-tooted someone who gives x^2 + 1 as a counterexample.
Does this link work for you to see the comment? https://awful.systems/comment/9163259
now it works! I do not understand the two sentences “I’ve never heard of a function being called entire out of complex analysis. But still, it (what? - ed.) is zero at i.”
I believe those sentences can be paraphrased as, “The term entire function is only used in complex analysis. The function f(z) = z^2 + 1 is zero at z = i.”
Thanks, i don’t speak english natively
the poster is referring to the function
f(z) = z^2 + 1
I’ve never heard of a function being called entire out of complex analysis. But still, it is zero at i.
A fact that AI gets wrong.
Closely related is a thought I had after responding to yet another paper that says hallucinations can be fixed:
I’m starting to suspect that mathematics is not an emergent skill of language models. Formally, given a fixed set of hard mathematical questions, it doesn’t appear that increasing training data necessarily improves the model’s ability to generate valid proofs answering those questions. There could be a sharp divide between memetically-trained models which only know cultural concepts and models like Gödel machines or genetic evolution which easily generate proofs but have no cultural awareness whatsoever.
Haven’t seen this skeet posted here. Skeet:
It’s 2050 and a teen girl is torrenting a .tar.gz file of all the consciousnesses of all the tech bros who uploaded themselves into the cloud in a bid for immortality and modding them into The Sims 4
Crypto Investor Proposes 450-Foot Statue of Greek God on Alcatraz Island is a story making the rounds in the press lately and aaaaaah I hate it. I’d say something more coherent than that but it’s already given me quite a headache.
He has a personal website as well as a website for his stupid statue idea. Both of which are buggy / ugly – apparently after saving $450 million for a dumb statue he has none left for good website coding.
He has a personal website as well as a website for his stupid statue idea. Both of which are buggy / ugly – apparently after saving $450 million for a dumb statue he has none left for good website coding.
Tenner says he vibe-coded both of them himself. Man’s a capitalist at heart, he thinks paying labour their fair due is an abomination unto God.
If they’re going to make a 450 foot tall statue of Greek people I can think of more appropriate designs for San Francisco Bay.
“We call this the Reacharound Collossi”
(thinks) The Colossus of Chodes
I propose a 450-foot-tall statue of the most famous parts of Kirk Johnson’s anatomy, facing southwest back towards the city
Guy should just get “I love for-profit prisons” tattooed on his face instead of dressing up an island in bad bioshock cosplay.
The Framework thread caused by the company’s fash turn is still going even after eight full days.
Lotta lowlights to pick from, but the guy openly praising DHH for driving Basecamp straight off a cliff is particularly sneer-worthy:
I hope it’s still going after 8 full years, if the company’s even still in business. Trust is only built back with accountability.
“Not Winston Smith?” So, O’Brien?
“Apolitical” is peak red flag these days, eh?
Definitely, it’s just code for I’m ok with nazis at this point.
Yeah definitely synonymous with the whole “neutrality sides with the oppressor” thing
More “red hat” than “red flag”, but you’re still dead-on.
Kind of a ramble: So, I’ve been out in the wild recently. I use discord and have noticed that in most of the servers I’m in, either they have an explicit no-genAI policy or quarantined sections where genAI content is allowed. On one podcast’s server, I posted a complaint about some genAI content that was posted to the podcast’s server, and the embed was removed because it showed the genAI content- 10/10, love to see it. On another server, I figured out that the channel was created specifically because they had a sealion problem but didn’t want to ban their sealion (it appeared to be just one).
An interesting (read: stupid) thing about this sealion was that they are a self-styled leftist that was pro-AI. I won’t try to replicate any of their nonsense here, because A) it was nonsense stemming from a refusal to believe any anti-AI data and a lack of understanding of how LLMs work, and B) I don’t want to look like I’m posting about some kind of argument I had elsewhere here in order to score internet points, as I’m self aware/anxious enough to know that I sound exactly like that right now.
They posted this recent article written by Peter Coffin. There isn’t much about this guy on the internet. All I can gather is that they are some kind of breadtuber or in the breadtube orbit. It’s funny (read: farcical) to see a person posing as leftist say they are “pro-AI” but “anti-AI industry”. Either they don’t understand how the technology works (i.e. ignorant) or are accelerationist, wanting both the destruction of the environment and art (i.e. wilfully stupid)
Anyway, this exploration has shown me that some leftists don’t support copyright protections. I understand that from a couple different perspectives: 1. The main beneficiaries of copyright protections are large media corporations, and 2. it can be interpreted as trying to capitalistically extract fictional value, much like a landlord charging rent. I’m not trying to debunk this (I don’t think I’m representing this well enough). My thought is that I don’t give a shit about corporations losing money, what I care about is the work of individual artists being under/de-valued. Copyrights are an imperfect method that artists use to try seek justice, so it’s a grey area for me. Coffin in the article linked paints the situation as black and white: anyone who tries to stop someone “stealing” is actually rent seeking, whether or not they are a megacorp or a starving artist.
End of ramble, sorry that there wasn’t much of a point or structure here. Would love to hear any thoughts that come out from reading this.
[Copyright i]s not for you who love to make art and prize it for its cultural impact and expressive power, but for folks who want to trade art for money.
Quoting Anarchism Triumphant, an extended sneer against copyright:
I wanted to point out something else: that our world consists increasingly of nothing but large numbers (also known as bitstreams), and that - for reasons having nothing to do with emergent properties of the numbers themselves - the legal system is presently committed to treating similar numbers radically differently. No one can tell, simply by looking at a number that is 100 million digits long, whether that number is subject to patent, copyright, or trade secret protection, or indeed whether it is “owned” by anyone at all. So the legal system we have - blessed as we are by its consequences if we are copyright teachers, Congressmen, Gucci-gulchers or Big Rupert himself - is compelled to treat indistinguishable things in unlike ways.
Or more politely, previously, on Lobsters:
Another big problem is that it’s not at all clear whether information, in the information-theoretic sense, is a medium through which expressive works can be created; that is, it’s not clear whether bits qualify for copyright. Certainly, all around the world, legal systems have assumed that bits are a medium. But perhaps bits have no color. Perhaps homomorphic encryption implies that color is unmeasurable. It is well-accepted even to legal scholars that abstract systems and mathematics aren’t patentable, although the application of this to computers clearly shows that the legal folks involved don’t understand information theory well enough.
Were we anti-copyright leftists really so invisible before, or have you been assuming that No True Leftist would be anti-copyright?
the legal system is presently committed to treating similar numbers radically differently. No one can tell, simply by looking at a number that is 100 million digits long, whether that number is subject to patent, copyright, or trade secret protection, or indeed whether it is “owned” by anyone at all
If you look at data in the way that best obscures what it actually means, of course it can’t be told apart from other data. Binary is simply a way to encode information that most often has an analogue equivalent. You can of course question the copyright of all works, but looking at them in a hex editor is almost a distraction.
Certainly, all around the world, legal systems have assumed that bits are a medium. But perhaps bits have no color. Perhaps homomorphic encryption implies that color is unmeasurable.
This is getting pretty close to technolibertarianism. Corbin, I like your posts but i can’t get behind this
TL; DR: please forgive my ignorance on this topic:
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a “good” leftist in the sense that I don’t do a ton of reading, and didn’t think too hard about copyright at this level. I did try do some reading because the anti-copyright takes as I encountered them in this context initially seemed iffy, but through research I found that my initial ideas weren’t well informed.
The most common form of anti-copyright sentiment I’ve encountered comes from mostly the piracy community. I don’t really participate in the community part of that, so I haven’t spent a lot of time reading any of their theory or philosophy, which has been to my detriment here. That being said, the stuff that I have seen has been mostly from a place of entitlement, so I felt safe in not exploring the literature.
Also, basically all of my recent reading of leftist material has had no focus on copyright. It’s all been economic, geopolitical stuff. That isn’t to say copyright issues aren’t important, it just hasn’t been in focus.
Anyway, this all started on my end because, in a discord server unrelated to this instance, I had expressed consternation over individual artists getting fucked over by AI companies, and celebrating whenever they clawed back whatever amount of justice they could. This was immediately in bad faith equated with full throated support for Disney’s ruthless copyright lawyer army. I didn’t really understand why that was happening, so I did some reading, and thought it was worth sharing about here.
So to specifically answer this:
Were we anti-copyright leftists really so invisible before, or have you been assuming that No True Leftist would be anti-copyright?
More the former than the latter, but only due to my blind ignorance. The latter was not my assumption. I had encountered someone claiming to be a leftist but was not, for reasons unrelated to being anti-copyright.
“[Copyright i]s not for you who love to make art and prize it for its cultural impact and expressive power, but for folks who want to trade art for money.”
Fatuous romantic bollocks.
Thanks! You’re getting better with your insults; that’s a big step up from your trite classics like “sweet summer child”. As long as you’re here and not reading, let’s not read from my third link:
As a former musician, I know that there is no way to train a modern musician, or any other modern artist, without heavy amounts of copyright infringement. Copying pages at the library, copying CDs for practice, taking photos of sculptures and paintings, examining architectural blueprints of real buildings. The system simultaneously expects us to be well-cultured, and to not own our culture. I suggest that, of those two, the former is important and the latter is yet another attempt to coerce and control people via subversion of the public domain.
Maybe you’re a little busy with your Biblical work-or-starve mindset, but I encourage you to think about why we even have copyright if it must be flaunted in order to become a skilled artist. It’s worth knowing that musicians don’t expect to make a living from our craft; we expect to work a day job too.
well there you have it
bitter winter adult it is
the concept that copyright is about art or artistic value and not money, is about as attached to reality as the ai technorapture
this barely has to even be argued, in spirit or in practice. even the concept of “ownership” as ascribed to creators is basically just a right to sell the work or sublicense said “ownership”
“the concept that copyright is about art or artistic value and not money”
I didn’t say it was.
“Real artists do it for love, not money” is as stupid as saying “Real artists shoot heroin and have untreated mental illness.”
Real artists have bills to pay and families to feed.
you definitely did in fact say that the idea that “copyright is about trading art for money” is bollocks. that is in fact a thing you said, straightforwardly
compare and contrast with “real artists do it for love, not money”, which is a thing nobody in this entire thread said
and wouldn’t you know it, a complete devolution into full-tilt “”“debate”“” shadowboxing is my cue to turn off notifications. best of luck in the ring, i hear the spectre of communism has a nasty left hook
There isn’t much about this guy on the internet.
There is actually, but it is mostly on youtube. Anyway he aligned himself to Caleb Maupin. A colorblind communist who thinks brown is red. (I dont think he is actually colorblind, but he likes Dugin).
There is actually, but it is mostly on youtube.
Ah yes I am always finding out ways in which I can be more online
Yeah, im just saying it exists. Not saying people make similar bad life choices to me that make you realize this stuff exists. (If you do want to however thought slimes ‘hmm borger king’ video about maupin is quite something).
if only, maupin spoke on a conference in teheran next to dugin and publishes his books. the layer of red paint on brown couldn’t be possibly thinner. see also: jackson hinkle, maga-communism. i wish everyone involved nice tuberculosis infection in damp ukrainian prison
It was amazing that maupin went ‘people accuse me of being a duginist and it was crazy, never read any of his work when people said that. Minutes later I have read his work now however, and quite agree with him’. (Badly paraphrased however).
Also lol at crp.
It’s funny (read: farcical) to see a person posing as leftist say they are “pro-AI” but “anti-AI industry”.
not looking to start instance war or anything btw
iirc one of db0 admins is of this opinion which boils down to, in their case, that they’re pro-ai but only if self-hosted (ie “yes, i’m pro-ai, just not pro-the kind of ai that is actually used in 99.9% ai output”). they join it with pro-piracy and anarchist positions and it’s part of the reason why ai content is allowed on that instance. iirc it’s not even consensus among their other admins
pro-AI but only self hosted
Like being pro-corporatism but only with regard to the breadcrumbs that fall off the oligarchs’ tables.
We should start calling so-called open source models trickle-down AI.
When I steal the trickle-down lying machine, it’s called a “piss take.”
Self-identifying as “progressive” and being anti-copyright and thus pro-AI is something I’ve seen before online.
I’ve never charged money for my creative output, but my “moral right” as an author/creator is very important to me.
The “thus pro-AI” is just so, so, stupid. Like, any anti-capitalist argument you make against copyright just immediately implodes when you do the qui bono.
I’m a leftist who doesn’t support intellectual property. My solutions to intellectual property are 1) communism, or at least 2) basic income, in that order of preference.
Until one of the solutions to the problem of intellectual property is implemented, individuals should be allowed full sovereignity over their intellectual creations as they see fit. Personally all my intellectual creation is either public domain, or published under open, explicitly anti-capitalist licenses. But that’s because I have a day job and a safe economic situation. If an artist decides people should pay to use their stuff, people should pay to use their stuff. The consent of the creator is non-negotiable.
Capitalists are the enemy and I don’t give a flying fuck about capitalist intellectual property. My rule, grosso modo, is: if I pay to access this piece of art, does the money go to the creators, or does it go to some corporation’s shareholders? If the first, I pay, gladly. If the second, I sail the high seas. Sometimes when it’s hybrid (usually of the form “the artist gets peanuts and the capital owners get the lion’s share”) I will dig up the artist’s patreon or ko-fi or whatever, donate the price of the thing there, and pirate it, under the assumption that the patreon/ko-fi/bandcamp/etc. cut is smaller than the typical entertainment industry’s.
Peter Coffin is a fuck and his contrarian-ass pro-AI stuff deserves sneering to the full extent of sneerdom
Is it a single person or a worker co-op? Their copyright is sacred.
Is it a corporation? Lol, lmao, and also yarrr
Lol, lmao, and also yarrr
Glorious banner material
One of my favourite musicians, Patricia Taxxon is quite vocal on being against intellectual property, but also that AI people should just be able to scrape everything and put it in their machine. It makes me sad.
i think her takes make a little more sense if you think of the infinite noise machine as the art object itself rather than any particular output of it. i obviously can’t read her mind but if you think of a music-generating model as an interactive music toy rather than “a replacement for a musician”, then her position makes way more sense. why wouldn’t you want more people doing Poet Laureate Infinity? i think for her the crime isn’t scraping, but scraping in service of overmarketed smoothed-over slop generators instead of actually interesting art
Yeah I mean I am in favour that food should not be paywalled from the hungry and everyone who wants food should be able to just go to the food and eat it (i.e. I am in favour of a system that allocates resources according to need). I am not in favour that wealthy capital owners who already hold all the power in the world should be allowed to vacuum all the food into a hell blender that produces processed food product to try and impress investors into another round of funding for their food sucking machine. These are not the same thing.
I’m stealing this take :p
I will deliberately avoid declaring the take to be in the public domain, just so that you can enjoy the street cred of your life of crime 🏴☠️
coffin’s a grifter with a narcissistic streak. they surfaced around gamergate and then quickly shat the metaphorical floor.
My exposure to the guy began and ended at seeing him tut-tutting HBomberguy for nuking James Somerton’s career - glad to know my five-second assessment of him was dead on
Reading the post and later seeing that Steve Harvey clip was like reading Pinker and then seeing his pics with Epstein. Except Coffin (or just his own foot) is his own Epstein.
They posted this recent article written by Peter Coffin
Oh, hey, that’s the “Plagiarism is AWESOME, And Here’s Why” guy, who tut-tutted HBomberguy for erasing plagiarist shithead James Somerton from existence and went to bat for JK Rowling okay yeah dump this guy’s shit in the fucking bin
I was pretty strongly anti-copyright back when I was younger, but after seeing the plague of art theft and grave robbing the NFT fad brought (documented heavily by @NFTTheft on Twitter), and especially after the AI bubble triggered an onslaught of art theft, cultural vandalism and open hostility to artists, I have come around to strongly supporting it.
I may have some serious complaints about the current state of copyright (basically everyone has), but its clear that copyright is absolutely necessary to protect artists (rich and poor) from those who exploit the labour of others.
Yeah. At the very least copyrights give some level of protection to the individual that you don’t often see elsewhere. Like, the government can take your land, but they can’t steal your memes.
https://xcancel.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1980035057067884670
hmm yes, this will surely replace wikipedia.
Everything about this is terrible:
Crypto scammer reported to ICE after stealing cancer patient’s treatment fund
why is aweful systemes broken today? does it depend on aws somehow?
does it depend on aws somehow?
Well, what do you think “aws” stands for ;)
nah sorry about that, the scrapers took the opportunity to knock us offline again so I did a little bit of impromptu maintenance to make us more rugged against the same type of failure in the future
the next work I do around this will be significantly more planned because it’ll be iocaine
