Paradigm Pudding

Riot Leviathan Woodhouse. he/they, genderfuck. millennial solidarity. anarcho-socialist sjw. memes. bullshit. Formerly Dr. Ducks, a name which no longer serves me. Mostly reblogs with the occasional jarring tonal shift to deeply personal and uncomfortable internal monologue.

[sgrstk]

[depsidase]

[mysharona1987]

[depsidase]

[thatdisasterauthor]

I think the thing that annoys me most about AI on a personal, day to day, level is what it has done to grammar checkers. If you've never done a lot of editing, or used to 5+ years ago but haven't really in the last couple years, I can't even begin to describe how fucking BAD this shit has gotten. And as an author it is EXHAUSTING.

I just want to catch spelling errors and accidental double spaces and repeated phrases and whenever I use the wrong too/to or affect/effect and shit. But no. They've shoved AI up the ass of every grammar checking software out there and now they all fucking suck and make the most random, obnoxious, nonsensical suggestions.

And yeah, I can ignore all the times it's trying to get me to cut out any semblance of my own voice, or shove things into the wrong tense, or make the most random suggestions on comma usage. But if it's getting all that WRONG, what is it just straight up missing that I SHOULD be correcting? What real spelling and grammar errors are still lurking in there?

[thatdisasterauthor]

"Use Libre Office."

I get why people keep saying this (and other versions of it like "Use Adobe alternatives" and "Use Google product alternatives."). But here's the problem: I do not create in isolation. Even my own 100% personal projects are getting sent to other people whether it's editors or printers or beta readers and unless every single person in that train is using the same products, things can get wonky.

Libre Office and Word handle formatting differently on the back end, which can completely break documents if you move them back and forth between the two. So if I write in Libre Office but my beta readers are still using Word, when I send them a manuscript for review there's a good chance things won't look right and my beta reader will not actually be reviewing what I sent them.

Industry standards are industry standards FOR A REASON. Having everyone on the same workflow can be crucial to getting things done effectively and correctly without creating a lot of extra work. And those things are not going to change overnight, as much as we might want them to.

[thatdisasterauthor]

:| :| :|

Yeah, Word, let me just leave this whole chunk of dialogue without the closing quotation marks. That's the thing to do. How dare I have two punctuation marks in a row. It's not like that's how closing quotation marks fucking work.

[thatdisasterauthor]

I am going to light something on fire.

[thatdisasterauthor]

And you know, for young writers, this has got to be so detrimental just from the perspective of opening your document and seeing a million corrections that, frankly, don't need to be there. If you're a young writer you're likely not going to have the background knowledge to know what is and isn't a good suggestion, you're just going to see a document that makes it look like you made every mistake possible so clearly you must be a terrible, stupid writer and should just give up.

[depsidase]

[depsidase]

[pitviperofdoom]

I try not to fall into the "I never liked their work anyway" ditch when an artist/creator reveals themself to be a terrible person

BUT

a feeling I do have and will stand by is "While I enjoyed their work overall I did have some gripes that I overlooked out of affection and whimsy, but now that my loyalty is gone and my affection tainted there is nothing holding me back from enumerating my many grievances, to which the revelations of the creator's shittiness may or may not provide a new and infuriating context."

[beatrice-otter]

#such a good summation of this actually#because yeah there’s usually things that were always present#but which were easy to overlook or give the benefit of the doubt#that suddenly become relevant after a revelation about the creator#and it’s really not the same thing as the self-defensive “’I never liked it anyway’

tags via chimaerakitten

[40ouncesandamule]

The limits of the liberal imagination are going to get us all killed

[weepingwitch]

i do wish the response to the ai water usage concern debate (umm actually the water and mineral usage is roughly equivalent to all of our other constantly growing massive distributed information systems that require enormous amounts of resource extraction etc etc etc) was less of a "haha checkmate luddites" and more of a "hmm maybe we should reevaluate our usage of constantly growing massive distributed information systems that require enormous amounts of resource extraction" but idk

[thefairytaler]

[depsidase]

[unicorncryptid]

"my life isn't a crime, I'm not one of those people -"

"you sure? new parameters for Those People just dropped. check again."

[lizardywizard]

And if you truly cannot imagine this, if you're convinced that it will never happen to you, consider this one thing.

Would you want scammers to know the state of your loved one's dementia?

[inbabylontheywept]

i think if i asked peter thiel for 500 million dollars, and told him that my business plan was to spend 499 million of that on oil futures, and the remaining 1 million ordering the entire stock of pizza, burgers, fries, shakes, jamba juices, schitzels, fucking wetzels pretzels, the whole lot, within 50 miles of the pentagon, just to see if i could blow up the pentagon pizza index enough to move global oil markets 0.2% and recoup my losses... i think that if i asked him that, in those exact words, he would give me 1 billion dollars just to see if i could do it twice. and i would try. god forgive me i would try.

[inbabylontheywept]

this is less about being smart and more about having some small pearl of evil lodged in the center of your being. you lack the evil pearl. thats okay. not all of us can be descendants of wicked oyster men.

[businesstiramisu]

#“descendents of the evil oyster man” wins the 2026 prize for “most baffling DNI”

[depsidase]

[therarityofcharity]

Okay, story time! I had this friend that seemed really cool and we aligned on a lot of things. They were hella anti military, which is super fucking valid, but it was to the point where they told me if I wanted to stay friends with them, I needed to force my husband to cut off his mom because she teaches first aid and swim lessons on a base. Being anti us military is an incredibly valid stance, but to try and force me to force another person to cut off their only family because they work on a base? His mom isn’t even a soldier, she’s fucking red cross and is working with the military to teach first aid and water safety lessons! The things he was saying legit felt like talking to a fed that was trying to sow division. It would’ve been bad enough to set that line and try to force me to cut off my family, but that’s not even MY mom! I have zero say in whether someone else chooses to cut off their family, that is not a decision me or anyone else can make for someone! It was just such a wild ultimatum to get from someone I considered a friend and I essentially told them, “hey, i agree with a lot of your points about the military, but it isn’t my place to force someone to cut off their only family and it sure as hell isn’t yours”

Anyways, suffice to say we are not friends anymore and if my husband cuts off his mom that will be his decision alone because that is his family and will affect him, not me and not this random “friend”

[tieflingkisser]

[mstgsmy66]

[sztupy]

Landmark German ruling declares Google's AI Overviews are Google's own words and makes it liable for false answers

A German regional court has ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI search overviews. According to the court, previou

[ayeforscotland]

Let’s fucking go

[made-in-manetheren]

This is HUGE.

1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.

2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.

3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."

4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.

TL;DR Google reeeeeally stepped in it this time.

[alianoralacanta]

5. If the words are Google's, this solidifies the position of universities who demand that all answers from AI are fully cited. If all the in-line citations now have to be (Google, 2026), that's going to make it obvious when someone's trying to use Google as a source. There's still the difficulty with people who are academically dishonest by trying to pass off the AI writing as their own. 6. 91% accuracy is officially too low to use as a source of references, which means the AI can't be used as a source of references either. This makes it less legitimate for such purposes than Wikipedia of all places (Wikipedia might need date/time proof of when it was accessed for the reference to be valid, but at least it is possible to prove the link existed at a particular date and time). 7. This will help encourage the rollout of courses on how to avoid AI search for students who need academic accuracy, because it's statistically not good enough to use. 8. This strengthens the case intellectual property authors have against Google in the EU, as this is proof that an intellectual property transfer took place.