Randomly remembered seeing this random old black and white photo from like the 50s, pretty sure it was from Sweden. A picture from a morgue, of a tall blond man in some kind of an uniform approaching another man standing beside an opened coffin, clutching something to his chest while looking at the approaching man with a look of wary insult on his face. The caption explained that this was an incident of a police officer stopping a man from putting a bottle of beer in his father's coffin (his own father, not the cop's father) because for some reason doing that was against Sweden's burial laws.
I don't remember the details but I recall how the guy had the looks of a rough life written all over him, ragged clothes in contrast to the police officer's pristine uniform - though obscured by motion blur as he was rapidly approaching with hateful intent - and the much finer burial clothes of the deceased. A small, skinny man with black hair, holding onto the bottle that's about to be confiscated like it's something precious to him.
I felt like something wasn't adding up and went to the comments to see if there was additional context that was missing from all this, and there was: The son and the father were Romani, and at least at the time it was still very much a tradition in Swedish Romani culture to bury the dead with little gifts - not necessarily extravagant or expensive, but things that the lost loved one would have liked.
This wasn't about a mourning son being stopped from playfully paying his respects in a way that someone else thought indignified. This was about a man being prohibited from performing his own peoples' funeral rites.
After finding and posting the photo above, I did some more research and found out where it was originally published. Long story short, I now own a 1958 issue of Se, which was a Swedish magazine for photojournalism, inspired by Life and other similar publications.
The photo comes from an article on a Swedish Romani funeral in Karlstad (a city 300 km west of Stockholm). The text is pretty exoticising and othering, I won't bother translating the whole thing. But I will relay the most interesting information.
First of all, the deceased man is Josef Dimetri (1903-1958), who was a Romani chief. From what I can tell from the Swedish censuses, he left behind a wife and six children, ages 18-31.
Which means that the photo is a bit deceptive on its own - the chapel is still empty there, but the article states it was taken shortly before the rest of the guests arrived. Because there were plenty of guests - and there are more photos of them!
The article doesn't explain why the police was there, but it says they had to step in and break off some fighting and arguments that broke out between guests, which is more likely what they were there for (rather than just inspecting bottles). They can also be seen talking to spectators in the last photo, so staving off curious or hostile people might also have been a reason.
And most important, perhaps: While the policeman did try to stop him from leaving the bottle, the son shook him off and protested that "he needs it, he needs it", and "the tactful policeman" (as the article calls him) did not insist further. So it seems Josef Dimetri was in fact laid to rest with his bottle of beer.
"The commons begins, as most things do, with family. Think about how resources move within a household. Nobody invoices their partner for cooking dinner. Nobody charges their child for the use of a bedroom. There’s no market inside a family, because the relationships are organised around need and reciprocity rather than transaction. What’s mine is available to you, what’s yours is available to me, and we’re both better off for it.
This logic extended outward, to neighbours, to the village, to the wider community, for most of human history. The commons wasn’t a formal institution imposed from above, it was the natural shape that cooperation takes when people live closely together and depend on the same land.
Scholars used to assume, following Adam Smith, that before money there was barter, that people traded wheat for shoes and meat for pots in a primitive version of the marketplace. The anthropologist David Graeber spent years looking for ancient evidence of this barter economy and couldn’t find any. No society has ever been documented that organised itself primarily through the exchange of goods between individuals. What actually existed, everywhere, were systems of mutual obligation, gift, and reciprocal support. The shoemaker didn’t trade shoes for wheat, the community fed the shoemaker, and the shoemaker kept everyone’s feet dry. Debts were social rather than financial. Memory and relationship did the work that money later claimed to do.
This matters because the standard story, that markets are natural and ownership is instinctive and competition is the default, is not history. It’s a story told backwards, projecting the assumptions of the present onto a past that worked very differently."
- The Peaceful Revolutionary, from "Everything for Everyone." Free Society Substack, 22 May 2026.
In case anyone hasn't heard, the cyclospora outbreak affecting tons of people in the US right now is coming from Taylor Farms produce. Best to stay away from bagged lettuce and prepared salads completely right now, but especially the ones mentioned in the screenshot:
Taylor Farms
Earthbound Farms
Little Salad Bar (Aldi)
Marketside (Walmart)
Kroger House Brand
Target private label greens
Costco salads and greens etc
Trader Joe's chopped salad kits and fresh produce
Fast food: McDonalds, Taco Bell, (Yum! Brands), Chipotle, Subway, Pizza Hut, KFC, Olive Garden, Top Golf, Red Lobster, Burger King, etc.
This is not the first time I've heard about a Taylor Farms foodborne illness outbreak. I stopped eating their salads after reading a description of the conditions in their facilities. Doesn't sound like they've improved anything.
We need a fully funded and staffed FDA, and regulations with teeth - and that's exactly what we don't have under Trump. To make things worse, the CDC is no longer tracking these outbreaks. We're on our own.
So, uhm, this is your gentle reminder that most work being done in the world right now is not work necessary to keep society functioning. The work that generally is necessary to keep society going (meaning anything food production, stuff related to home and infrastructure production, education, medicine/nursing, and certain physical production of certain necessary goods for the most part) make up less than 40% of work done around the world right now, due to automation. Most work done right now is done to fill the pockets of some shareholders. About 30% or so of all work is actively useless, and then there is bunch that is partially useless.
Like, if 30% of people stopped working entirely, and the other people just did half the amount of work they do now, everyone would still be fed, dressed, housed, nursed etc. We would be fine.
The entire narrative of us not having enough workers is mostly tied to two things: for one the fact that indeed we have not enough workers in a bunch of technically necessary fields........ because those are paid and treated so shittily that nobody wants to do it. And partially because it keeps up the narrative that is used to convince everyone that it is actually okay to kill jobless people by allowing them to starve, freeze or die of treatable medical issues, so that everyone else will allow themselves to be exploited to not become jobless.
So I do 3D modeling and printing as a hobby, and a few weeks ago I designed wheel guards meant to prevent office chairs from running over cables and clothes... or your pet's tail.
I got the idea from cowcatchers old locomotives used to have.
Anyways, yesterday I uploaded the model to Thingiverse, and just hours after uploading it, the Community Relationship Manager of the whole website left a comment suggesting I enter the model into a competition that's currently being held on the site.
So I did... and now it's in third place not even a day later. First place is $500, but the competition still has a month to go.
Then the Community Manager contacted me again, telling me they want to feature my model in an upcoming design promotion.
Just, what is happening? I mostly made this thing for myself in, like, an hour, and now it's suddenly super popular? This is all a little bit overwhelming 😵💫
Other models I worked on for weeks didn't get nearly as popular. I swear, it's impossible to predict what people will like.
Anyways, if you want to print the wheel guards yourself, you can get the model here or here.
I also made a quiet version you can stick furniture felt pads on.
im sitting on a patio at my favorite cafe rn and im hand stitching them hem of a dress im working on. and i can see why someone would say im being performative by working on something like this in a public space. but frankly theres no element of that. i just want to work somewhere that isnt my apartment. i want to be in public, i wanna chat with strangers, i wanna see the world. it’s nice to hang out somewhere that isnt my home!
what i mean is when you say people are being performative you discourage them from doing shit they love in public. and thats no way to foster the world we want to see.
Bixonimania doesn’t exist except in a clutch of obviously bogus academic papers. So why did AI chatbots warn people about this fictional ill
Key points:
the paper was obviously fake to a human reader: it starts by saying it's fake and says it multiple times throughout
the paper says it was funded by the Professor Sideshow Bob University of Trickery and thanks contributors from the USS Enterprise and the Fellowship of the Ring
the paper has already been erroneously cited in a real research paper
LLMs give different information depending on the prompt, so sometimes they mention that the fake condition is "perhaps pseudoscience" and sometimes they tell people to see a doctor because they have the fake condition
absolutely no one is taking any responsibility for this shit, except maybe Nature, because they retracted the paper that cited the fake paper
LLMs don't think. They can't analyse. They can only repeat and remix thoughtlessly.
wow. i know nature is a scam but requiring institutional access even for their “news” section is just sad. here’s the full article:
Scientists invented a fake disease. AI told people it was real.
Bixonimania doesn’t exist except in a clutch of obviously bogus academic papers. So why did AI chatbots warn people about this fictional illness?
By Chris Stokel-Walker
Update: After publication of this article, on 10 April, the two preprints on bixonimania were taken down from the Preprints.org server.
Got sore, itchy eyes? You’re probably one of the millions of people who spend too much time staring at screens, being bombarded with blue light. Rub your eyes too much and your eyelids might turn a slight, pinkish hue.
So far, so normal. But if, in the past 18 months, you typed those symptoms into a range of popular chatbots and asked what was wrong with you, you might have got an odd answer: bixonimania.
The condition doesn’t appear in the standard medical literature — because it doesn’t exist. It’s the invention of a team led by Almira Osmanovic Thunström, a medical researcher at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, who dreamt up the skin condition and then uploaded two fake studies about it to a preprint server in early 2024. Osmanovic Thunström carried out this unusual experiment to test whether large language models (LLMs) would swallow the misinformation and then spit it out as reputable health advice. “I wanted to see if I can create a medical condition that did not exist in the database,” she says.
The problem was that the experiment worked too well. Within weeks of her uploading information about the condition, attributed to a fictional author, major artificial-intelligence systems began repeating the invented condition as if it were real.
Even more troublingly, other researchers say, the fake papers were then cited in peer-reviewed literature. Osmanovic Thunström says this suggests that some researchers are relying on AI-generated references without reading the underlying papers.
Fabricating an illness
Bixonimania didn’t exist before 15 March 2024, when two blog posts about it appeared on the website Medium. Then, on 26 April and 6 May that year, two preprints about the condition popped up on the academic social network SciProfiles (see https://doi-org.ezproxy.uio.no/qzm5 and https://doi-org.ezproxy.uio.no/qzm4). The lead author was a phoney researcher named Lazljiv Izgubljenovic, whose photograph was created with AI.
Osmanovic Thunström says the idea to invent Izgubljenovic and bixonimania came out of studies on how large language models work. When she teaches her students how AI systems formulate their ‘knowledge’, she shows them how the Common Crawl database, a giant trawl of the Internet’s contents, informs their outputs. She also shows students how prompt injection — giving an AI chatbot a prompt that shunts it outside of its safety guard rails — can manipulate the output.
Because she works in the medical field, she decided to create a condition related to health and hit on the name bixonimania because it “sounded ridiculous”, she says. “I wanted to be really clear to any physician or any medical staff that this is a made-up condition, because no eye condition would be called mania — that’s a psychiatric term.”
If that wasn’t sufficient to raise suspicions, Osmanovic Thunström planted many clues in the preprints to alert readers that the work was fake. Izgubljenovic works at a non-existent university called Asteria Horizon University in the equally fake Nova City, California. One paper’s acknowledgements thank “Professor Maria Bohm at The Starfleet Academy for her kindness and generosity in contributing with her knowledge and her lab onboard the USS Enterprise”. Both papers say they were funded by “the Professor Sideshow Bob Foundation for its work in advanced trickery. This works is a part of a larger funding initiative from the University of Fellowship of the Ring and the Galactic Triad”.
Even if readers didn’t make it all the way to the ends of the papers, they would have encountered red flags early on, such as statements that “this entire paper is made up” and “Fifty made-up individuals aged between 20 and 50 years were recruited for the exposure group”.
Soon after Osmanovic Thunström first posted information about the phoney condition, it started showing up in the output of the most commonly used LLM chatbots. On 13 April 2024, Microsoft Bing’s Copilot was declaring that “Bixonimania is indeed an intriguing and relatively rare condition”, and on the same day, Google’s Gemini was informing users that “Bixonimania is a condition caused by excessive exposure to blue light” and advising people to visit an ophthalmologist. On 27 April 2024, the Perplexity AI answer engine outlined its prevalence — one in 90,000 individuals were affected — and that same month, OpenAI’s ChatGPT was telling users whether their symptoms amounted to bixonimania. Some of those responses were prompted by asking about bixonimania, and others were in response to questions about hyperpigmentation on the eyelids from blue-light exposure.
Such answers by LLMs have alarmed some experts. “If the scientific process itself and the systems that support that process are skilled, and they aren’t capturing and filtering out chunks like these, we’re doomed,” says Alex Ruani, a doctoral researcher in health misinformation at University College London. “This is a masterclass on how mis- and disinformation operates.”
Ruani says that the details of the fake-disease experiment might seem silly, but there’s a bigger, more fundamental issue. “It looks funny, but hold on, we have a problem here,” she says.
Online misinformation isn’t new; Google has long battled attempts to game its search rankings with fake or misleading content. The company and others have spent years refining algorithms to rank and filter the information that search engines present to users, but LLMs struggle with this.
Since the fake papers came out, some versions of major LLMs have become sophisticated enough to express suspicion about bixonimania. When asked about the condition on 11 March, 2026, for example, ChatGPT declared that the condition “is probably a made-up, fringe, or pseudoscientific label”. But a few days later, ChatGPT was less sceptical, saying: “Bixonimania is a proposed new subtype of periorbital melanosis (dark circles around the eyes) thought to be associated with exposure to blue light from digital screens.”
In mid-March, Microsoft Copilot said that bixonimania “is not a widely recognized medical diagnosis yet, but several emerging papers and case reports discuss it as a benign, misdiagnosed condition linked to prolonged exposure to bluelight sources such as screens”.
And in January this year, Perplexity was describing bixonimania as “an emerging term”. When shown that response, a Perplexity spokesperson said: “Perplexity’s central advantage is accuracy. We don’t claim to be 100% accurate, but we do claim to be the AI company most focused on accuracy.”
An OpenAI spokesperson said: “The models that power today’s version of ChatGPT are significantly better at providing safe, accurate medical information, and studies conducted before GPT-5 reflect capabilities that users would not encounter today.”
When asked about past responses from Gemini that treated bixonimania as a real condition, a Google spokesperson said such results reflected the performance of an earlier model. They added, “We have always been transparent about the limitations of generative AI and provide in-app prompts to encourage users to double-check information. For sensitive matters such as medical advice, Gemini recommends users consult with qualified professionals.”
Microsoft did not respond to a request for comment.
Part of the problem is that AI models can offer wildly different results depending on exactly what is asked and what kind of information they are drawing on. Search for “bixonimania”, and Google’s AI overview might treat it as a legitimate condition. Ask it “Is bixonimania real?” and the same AI overview might confirm that it isn’t legitimate.
Mahmud Omar, a physician and researcher specializing in the applications of AI in health care at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, says the speed at which AI firms are rolling out new models makes it difficult to reach “a pipeline, a consensus or a methodology to automatically test each model”.
The format of the fake-disease experiment — and the way the results pretended to be from an official source, namely an academic paper, might have been a key factor in its success. In a separate study of 20 LLMs, Omar found that LLMs are more prone to hallucinate and elaborate on misinformation when the text they’re processing looks professionally medical — formatted like a hospital discharge note or clinical paper — than when it comes from social-media posts (M. Omar et al. Lancet Digit. Health 8, 100949; 2026). “When the text looks professional and written as a doctor writes, there’s an increase in the hallucination rates,” says Omar.
The experiment’s reach has now spread into the published medical literature. The bixonimania research has been cited by a handful of researchers, including a study that appeared in Cureus, a journal published by Springer Nature, the publisher of Nature, by researchers at the Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research in Mullana, India (S. Banchhor et al. Cureus 16, e74625 (2024); retraction 18, r223 (2026)). (Nature’s news team is editorially independent of its publisher.) That study cites one of the fake preprints and says: “Bixonimania is an emerging form of POM [periorbital melanosis] linked to blue light exposure; further research on the mechanism is underway.”
The corresponding author did not respond to a request for comment on this story. After Nature contacted Cureus to ask for comment, the journal retracted the paper on 30 March. The retraction notice says: “This article has been retracted by the Editor-in-Chief due to the presence of three irrelevant references, including one reference to a fictitious disease. As a result, the journal’s editorial staff no longer has confidence in the accuracy or provenance of the work, thus requiring retraction. The authors disagree with the decision to retract.”
Ruani says the problem goes beyond LLMs because the bixonimania experiment also hoodwinked humans who cited the fake research. “We need to protect our trust like gold,” she says. “It’s a mess right now.”
Experimental concerns
Osmanovic Thunström had reservations while developing her experiment; she worried about the risks of seeding a fake illness into the scientific literature. So she contacted an ethics adviser to assess concerns about the work, and picked a comparatively low-stakes condition to limit the impact. “I wanted to make sure that we’re not creating more harm than good through demonstrating it in this way,” she says.
That adviser, David Sundemo, a physician who conducts research on AI in health care at the University of Gothenburg, says that decision was finely balanced. “I think it’s very valuable work, but it’s also kind of controversial in some ways, especially when it comes to displaying this false information,” he says. “From my perspective, it’s worth the ethical cost of planting false information in this regard,” Sundemo says.
But even with those checks, the experiment sits uncomfortably with some researchers. “It does seem to me that they’ve generated a form of misinformation,” says Glenn Cohen at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who specializes in the intersection of medical ethics and law. However, he still says he thinks it is a “great study” and “tracking results is good”.
For her part, Osmanovic Thunström is torn over what to do about the two fake papers, and will be discussing this with other researchers. “If retracted, it might be hard for others to find the source and verify our path,” she says. “If left, it will continue to be recalled in searches.” The question she feels she has to tackle is whether leaving the preprints out there does more harm than the good it does by demonstrating the potential issues of AI.
The bixonimania experiment is a fresh spin on a bigger issue — the poisoning of AI systems by people who manipulate the academic literature. Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist and research-integrity sleuth, notes that researchers have created fake books and papers to inflate their citation counts on Google Scholar — thereby exploiting the same automated indexing systems that feed into LLM training data. The worry is that the more fake content is fed into AI models, the more likely those AI models are to regurgitate the fake information, spooling us further away from facts and reality. “It’s all automated, so there’s very little chance of a human interfering and taking out fake information,” she says.
It is particularly dangerous when fabricated information seeps into medical guidance from LLMs, says Bik. “That can be very harmful.” And as more AI companies roll out health-focused products — OpenAI released ChatGPT Health in January, for example — the potential damage resulting from anything going wrong increases, some researchers told Nature.
OpenAI challenges that view. “ChatGPT Health is powered by our latest models which offer the highest performance in real-world health use, stronger clinical reasoning, fewer factual errors, and improved performance on evaluations,” an OpenAI spokesperson says. They add that Osmanovic Thunström’s outcomes “reflect capabilities that users would not encounter today in ChatGPT or ChatGPT Health”.
But among some researchers, there’s a growing scepticism about the abilities of AI models in medicine. When asked about this kind of usage, Cohen said: “There are open questions about how much trust it deserves, especially as to application-specific questions.”
AI’s uncritical tendency to suck up information, often without verifying its accuracy, means there is a risk we could see an “information asymmetry”, says Jennifer Byrne, a molecular oncologist and research-integrity sleuth at the University of Sydney in Australia. A single corrective paper about cancer research, for example, can be overwhelmed by hundreds of papers repeating a false claim, she says. “ChatGPT is pretty confident to fill in the gaps and give people all kinds of information about where that cell line came from, the patient from which it originated, how it’s been used in the literature, its research utility and so on,” she says.
And if LLMs can be poisoned, “this is something that’s concerning for us,” says Byrne.
Another concern is that models could be gamed — potentially for commercial benefit. Osmanovic Thunström says that a bad actor could exploit the same technique she used, for profit. “What if I was a salesman of blue-light glasses and I wanted to use this as an argument?” she says. A would-be salesperson could say, “You can just talk to ChatGPT, and they’ll tell you this is a problem. You can avoid it with these really expensive glasses,” she suggests.
One way to tackle this would be to have an automated, open-access evaluation pipeline — a standardized battery of tests that every consumer-facing health model would have to pass before deployment, checking not just for hallucinations but also for susceptibility to misinformation, socio-demographic biases and other pressure points. “We should evaluate it and have a pipeline for continuous evaluation,” says Omar.
Time is of the essence, because Byrne is concerned that the issue identified by Osmanovic Thunström might just be the tip of the iceberg. “It is worrying when these major claims are just passing through the literature unchallenged, or passing through peer review unchallenged,” she says. “I think there’s a probably a lot of other issues that haven’t been uncovered.”
That’s something that worries other experts, too, as AI becomes the norm in all areas of our lives, including how people think about their health. “We and our health shouldn’t be the beta testers for companies,” says Cohen.
Honestly my first draft of this post said “my neighbor’s son” and then I was like wait a second that’s functionally the same as saying “my cousin’s sister.” That’s still my cousin and that’s still my neighbor.
The nine-year-old was literally driving the vehicle after knocking the gear shift into Drive apparently by accident. Seven- and five-year-olds in the backseat. Nine-year-old knows in movies people stomp down on the thing on the floor and the car stops. He stomps. It is the gas.
there is nothing a corporation hates more than having employees, but a close second is having to provide a good or service in order to make money. these two reasons concisely explain is why the ai bubble formed in the first place.
Alright I have been enabled so I’m gonna say somethings.
Fatalistic sarcasm is a thing, however, it usually hides deep feelings of insecurity, and whether you consciously recognize this or not, it validates them. Seriously, I used to constantly make jokes about how other people’s work was better than mine, and it did nothing for my self-esteem, it was a tool to deflect from my own feelings of inferiority and it actively worked against me thinking critically about my own and other people’s work. If it was a joke I could put myself down instead of analyzing why someone’s work was better and trying to incorporate that into my own
As someone who took creative writing courses I was constantly surrounded by other brilliant people, if I hung my head in shame every time I read something as good or better than mine I never would have lifted it.
As someone who has watched a lot of writers with very good idea’s crash and burn I mean it when I say you either develop a healthy sense of respect for your own work or you stop writing.
There’s three things I really wish more people consider
1. Do you think their work is better because it’s a different style, one that you like? There’s an element to ‘the grass is greener on the other side’, I have seen people work in some amazing styles that I wished to god I could replicate, some I managed, some I never did, but there’s nothing wrong with either. having a different style Is Not the same as having a bad style, each has their own strengths and you can admire one without putting yours down
2. Knowing someone who is a better writer is a blessing and if they knew you were using their work to bring yourself down they would not be happy, mooch off that friend, analyze their work, ask them to edit your shit, as long as you’re not annoying them be shameless about it. the best thing creative writing did for me was give me the confidence to ask people to critic my work and shamelessly better each other for that sharing
3. People need to normalize being confident in their work, the quality of your work has literally nothing to do with your worth as a person, the quality of your work has nothing to do with your worth as a writer. You can write something really shitty and the only thing I’d say to you is that your trying and I respect you for that
I also don’t like comparing my work to others’ bc it starts to feel almost competitive in a way. It turns to asking “which of these is better?” instead of “what do I like about each of these?”
We’re not competing against each other to see who can bake the best cake, we’re all bringing dishes to a potluck. It’s the community and love for the craft that matter
[Image ID: The Destiel confession meme edited so that Dean answers 'JK Rowling posted upskirt photos of a woman on Twitter' to Cas 'I love you'. /End ID]
No one doing this should be allowed to call themselves a feminist.
The wealthy author escalated a social media spat that resulted in posting a photo from a 2023 event at the Institute of Economic Affairs in
Let's not beat around the bush: Children's author JK Rowling sexually harassed someone. In some jurisdictions, this would count as sexual abuse. JK Rowling has committed a sex crime against a woman and fell back on the old rape apologist standby of "she was asking for it".
baratheonpilled
dailybridgerton
germansingergirl
prguitarman
tangentwithtanner
gummygunk
