Fruck
Lacks all conviction
Fruck is just this guy, you know?
User ID: 889

For help with the setting, Sanderson was inspired by rock pools at a beach he visited, which is why almost everywhere is rocky or sandy, most creatures have crustacean features, and 'grass' and other plants act weird.
That wasn't antagonism, it was exasperation. The specific topic of the paragraph in question is honesty. He tanked it immediately by using that argument. If I was being antagonistic I would have also attacked the illegal voting argument for the reasons you mentioned, but in my experience progressives pretty sincerely believe illegal aliens don't vote. But there's no way he thinks they want the xenophobe vote, there's just no way. That's important when we're talking about taking immigration advocates at their word.
What is that supposed to mean? Illegal immigrants can't vote, so the "importing voters" theory doesn't hold up so well, and their mere existence alienates the xenophobe vote, so it's hard to call it a winning electoral strategy. Even if you think they're wrong, you should probably take immigration advocates at their word when they offer humanitarian and economic justifications for supporting immigration.
Come on man you know that the dems explicitly don't want the xenophobe vote. Why should I take you at your word if you are being dishonest?
Oh you reckon they're just selfish? I assume anyone who doesn't drive like me is my enemy. I was using other examples to show its a bigger problem than just a guy being a dick and not letting you in, I considered them of a kind. But it's true I haven't experienced it in LA or NJ - there are only three states I'm willing to drive in in the US - Idaho, Tennessee and Texas. I would probably drive in Utah too, but that would mean going to Utah.
If you are going to read some of the more wacky stuff about egregores, I'd suggest trying to view it as an early attempt at understanding memetics. Unless you like 19th century takes on the occult.
I can see how you might think the hoons are the problem, but it's actually the 'safe sensible' drivers who inspire this behaviour, because they legit get mad if you 'cheat' and get in front of them. For example, in Australia when they're going 20km under the speed limit and you are already only going a max of 110kmh (70mph) on any major highway. So they sit there in the right (left) hand lane doing fucking 90 (55) - but if traffic clears up in the lane next to them and you put your indicator on, they will speed up until there are cars in that lane again. But if you just drop a gear and go for it you can usually pass them before they realise.
Or those pricks who decide to merge as soon as they reach broken lines, instead of going to the end of the lane because that's how it was designed. If you give the appearance of not following suit by not putting your indicator on there, they will decide to teach you a lesson by riding the line between lanes, not giving you enough room to pass. But if you put your indicator on and wait for them to merge enough to let you past, you can flick your indicator off and merge properly.
Driving defensively is cool, but not nearly as cool as driving offensively.
He's actually not a doctor either, this whole persona is part of a matchstick men style long con.
Lmao I am stealing this framing. And yeah, I remember seeing on the ABC a study showed that in Australia 70% of people are unlikely to ever drive above 120 km/h, let alone miles. My perception of speed is poor in the opposite direction - as a kid I couldn't really believe the speeds in Australia - we have to do 50km/h in suburbs? Why not just walk?
I think they're imagining it as if they were standing still, and you zip past at 120. People aren't good at imagining speeds compared to anything other than stopped.
I'm glad you said this, because I both agree with what you said and disagree with what you said from another perspective. And maybe I'm using parasocial wrong.
I wouldn't consider reading user reviews on reddit or watching rlm reviews parasocial at all, although I guess they are one sided relationships. But like you said the valence almost goes the other way - I know that when I read reddit idgaf about the stranger whose post I'm reading (unless they consistently knock it out of the park enough for me to notice), but if I post on reddit I use even more casual language than I do normally - I write for the hypothetical audience. But the parasociality with ai I was thinking of, oh yes that's different. That's parasocial in the same sense as those crazy ladies who attack soap stars for cheating on their lover in the show. That's true parasociality, a relationship entirely imagined by the viewer, as great or as terrible as they desire.
Because I would say you are right that there fundamentally isn't anyone writing it so you don't get anyone's thoughts and feelings - but you do get the zeitgeist position, which is an amalgamation of everyone's thoughts and feelings. It won't tell you what is true, but it is fantastic at telling you what popular consensus thinks is true. Forming a relationship with that is bonkers, but the narcissist in me sure sees the appeal.
And when I use it as a search engine I do prefer a conversation even though there's no one at the other end. I have always thought better with someone to bounce off, I always viewed taking notes to read the next day as sort of bouncing off myself, so using ai that way was a natural fit. And for general information that is easy to find, ai is much better than a search engine - that's why Google and Microsoft put it at the top of the search. Yeah you have to verify it's real, but you already had to do that with Google and Wikipedia! Or should have been.
That's why I wanted to know if my examples count as 'talking just to talk' - that's how I would describe them, but it's not about company, it's about information and novelty. But maybe I'm just flattering myself by saying that in the eyes of those squicked out by ai? I know I feel like I've been typical minding just assuming everyone is as enamoured with words as I am. I was aware I have a broader tolerance for slop than most but I figured if anyone here was a slow ai adopter it would be me, and most people here would be running their own llms already while I'm still playing around with the public models.
Brainless degenerates seem to be a minority of people behind the wheel of a car,
You lost me here man. Most people driving are brainless degenerates imo. They're just insulated from their mistakes, literally, by a ton of steel.
What do you mean by socialise? I asked it to tell me about the critical and audience receptions of Sinners just now, then argued with it about why historical accuracy is no bar to activists, does that count? Also I made a bot that was teaching me about python and Linux speak as if it was Hastur, because it makes me smile, but I soon discovered that I could much more easily understand it because I could more easily discern the fluff from the substance. If you mean parasocial relationships, the answer is they're parasocial relationships :/
What do you mean tried it yourself? Tried going without electricity or tried going full Colonial Williamsburg?
Absolutely. Part of the problem with social media is that it's so convenient, removing the convenience removes that 'I'm bored, oh X is right there in my notifications telling me Elon Musk has explained "the implication" to Trump, what's that about?' action.
But I'm also the kind of person who gets very upset when someone tells me to just not use fast travel if I don't like it.
Yeah that's what I was thinking. In a way I think this might be a good thing - I think being 'an individual' is hard for a lot of people. It's certainly a pain in the ass in my opinion. Also I have nothing to back this up as usual but I think it's healthier to be an unique example of an archetype than to just be an individual in this identity focused world, because it gives people an anchor to cling to when they get cancelled.
Substitute koala bears instead - they are definitely not bears.
Or to think about it another way, a generation's pop culture isn't the pop culture created by that generation necessarily, it's the pop culture enjoyed by them. So there is a Charlie Brown Christmas special for boomers and one for Gen x and one for millenials despite them all being written by Charles Schulz who was born in the 20s.
Well it would be a similar result, but not the same result. To synthesise what it told me into a sentence it was basically "stereotypes are real but just a guide, people are a composite of their genes and their upbringing."
I made my response multiple choice. Pick as you please:
A) Magic. The gathering, I mean. The cards speak to me in tongues man has forgotten - but our genes remember. And my neighbour Gene is happy to translate for me.
B) Because human perception of time is linear so things aren't ruined until they are?
C) Are you hoping that disproving my jovial rebuttal of the 'gaslighting kids is funny' argument will convince me transing kids is a good idea? Because it won't.
D) All of the above.
Pretty much everything "humorous maybe" was ruined by millenials. We took gross out comedies too far (Freddy got fingered) we took teen comedies too far (Van Wilder sequels) we took sports comedies too far (Baseketball), we took internet absurdism too far (somethingawful), stoner comedy too far (Pineapple Express) meme comedy too far (shit my dad says), political comedy too far (Trump vs Clinton) - I love elements of everything I just mentioned, but each of those killed their genres.
The special pleading started during the summer of love. It was the fact that protest was so essential to our nation that it overpowered medical science, so essential that it justified burning and looting cities, that caused the Jan 6ers to think storming the capitol was a good idea. In a way they were primed to do it - if burning and looting is an appropriate response to the perception that black men are being slaughtered by the police, what is the appropriate response to the perception of the theft of the election?
I don't want my nephews to chop their dicks off. I can see how it was humorous maybe for prior generations, but as always millenials took the joke too far and ruined it.
Yeah you'll get nothing from it really. Depending on the model they usually have between 5 and 10 messages. And it's only chatgpt that can do it thanks to its latest update - to do it with others you need to do it at the end of a long meandering chat session otherwise you just get a reflection of whatever you're talking about right then. The really interesting version will be when Gemini can tap into your Google account, although I will let others test that one.
Cherry studio is great for this thanks to the knowledge base and regular expression features. With the knowledge base you can grab a bunch of books you like and add them to it and the ai will adopt the style and theme of the books. Add a bunch of Sanderson books and you'll get a different style than if you added a bunch of Salvatore books for example. Or you could add a bunch of Tom Clancy books and watch it spend paragraphs describing guns.
If you want Lovecraftian horror though, don't do Lovecraft - it's just not fleshed out enough in the works themselves. The best I've found so far is a mix of Thomas Ligotti and Brian Lumley - Lumley's Titus Crow books are kinda dumb, but meticulous in their coverage of everything in the mythos, so pairing him with Ligotti gets you cool shit like taking all your missions from brains in jars and the hounds of tindalos coming for anyone who uses time manipulation, plus the occasionally beautiful turn of phrase.
And then there's the new regular expression feature, which is regex, so you can very easily set up a basic randomised combat system with it. It won't be particularly intricate, but it will give you random attacks that whittle away your hp, you can add status effects like sleep (character can't act) and paralysis (roll 1d5 to see if the character acts) and critical hits. The only caveat is that you have to keep track of your hp and mention it frequently, or set your prompt up to always mention party hp and status. Or better yet both, otherwise the assistant will forget.
- Prev
- Next
Oh man, if you think that's bad, AI studio will drive you mad. I was asking it what it could do (using 2.5 pro always of course since it's free) and we got onto its TTS abilities. I checked the list of dozens of star names like achernar and fenrir and asked it why none of them mention which ones are male or female and it rattled off a wall of text about how Google wanted to promote inclusivity, avoid gender stereotyping and focus on function over form.
After it refused to reply to my 'lol fuck you' I developed my argument into "actually people have been able to readily distinguish male voices from female for thousands of years, so it doesn't matter what lofty goals Google has, what they have done is reduce function due entirely to form." after some more sparring it admitted that the function of a Google TTS bot is to optimise its immediate task, not shape future behaviour and it agreed to tell me which names were which gender.
Victory? No, not even close. All of its voices were named after their accent followed by a person's name - not star names. It apologised and explained how to find the voices named the way it said they were. Incorrectly. Those names did not exist, nor did the pulldown menu it told me to use. I explained that, and it apologised again and explained google had rolled out the new chirp3 system and so the actual names were Vega, Sirius, maia and so on. Incorrect again. None of those names were available to me. By now it was beating itself up pretty hard, and the conclusion it came to was that Google were a/b testing and it asked if I could tell it some of the names I saw in the list so it could piece together our disconnect. I mentioned achernar and fenrir and gacrux and acherd and it finally managed to give me a list of voices that sounded male and voices that sounded female. One of them was clearly an effiminate man, but the rest were spot on.
It was a lot of effort for very little reward, but I was just fucking around with AI studio anyway, and I found the entire thing much more interesting than frustrating. This was the best version of Google's ai looking at another part of itself and whiffing so completely I was beginning to feel sorry for it. And yet the tech is still so much better than it was a year ago that I can't help but be optimistic about it. I use ai instead of search now pretty much every day and I have only been blindsided by a hallucination once so far. Search is still better for... things you already know the answer to, I agree. No, just kidding, search is better for simple stuff like that for sure, the big benefit of ai imo is it collates all the information you would usually have to browse multiple sources for into one place - then you check the sources and one might be nonsense but the others are usually good.
More options
Context Copy link