this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
20 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1737 readers
93 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting 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 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.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (11 children)

AI slop in Springer books:

Our library has access to a book published by Springer, Advanced Nanovaccines for Cancer Immunotherapy: Harnessing Nanotechnology for Anti-Cancer Immunity.  Credited to Nanasaheb Thorat, it sells for $160 in hardcover: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-86185-7

From page 25: "It is important to note that as an AI language model, I can provide a general perspective, but you should consult with medical professionals for personalized advice..."

None of this book can be considered trustworthy.

https://mastodon.social/@JMarkOckerbloom/114217609254949527

Originally noted here: https://hci.social/@peterpur/114216631051719911

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 13 points 1 day ago (10 children)

I should add that I have a book published with Springer. So, yeah, my work is being directly devalued here. Fun fun fun.

[–] nightsky@awful.systems 8 points 1 day ago (6 children)

On the other hand, your book gains value by being published in 2021, i.e. before ChatGPT. Is there already a nice term for "this was published before the slop flood gates opened"? There should be.

(I was recently looking for a cookbook, and intentionally avoided books published in the last few years because of this. I figured that the genre is a too easy target for AI slop. But that not even Springer is safe anymore is indeed very disappointing.)

[–] BlueMonday1984@awful.systems 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Is there already a nice term for “this was published before the slop flood gates opened”? There should be.

"Pre-slopnami" works well enough, I feel.

EDIT: On an unrelated note, I suspect hand-writing your original manuscript (or using a typewriter) will also help increase the value, simply through strongly suggesting ChatGPT was not involved with making it.

[–] Architeuthis@awful.systems 4 points 1 day ago

hand-writing your original manuscript

The revenge of That One Teacher who always rode you for having terrible handwriting.

[–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can't wait until someone tries to Samizdat their AI slop to get around this kind of test.

[–] BlueMonday1984@awful.systems 3 points 1 day ago

AI bros are exceedingly lazy fucks by nature, so this kind of shit should be pretty rare. Combined with their near-complete lack of taste, and the risk that such an attempt succeeds drops pretty low.

(Sidenote: Didn't know about Samizdat until now, thanks for the new rabbit hole to go down)

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)