Want to wade into the snowy 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 so 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. If you’re wondering why this went up late, I was doing other shit)

  • ebu@awful.systemsEnglish
    10·
    1 day ago

    some parts intriguing, but mostly disappointing. several chunks of the text felt AI-generated. no fewer than 34 “it’s not X but Y”'s, by my count, and the out-of-nowhere typographies / tables definitely smell of slop. and obviously, the images definitely were. (can’t even be bothered to fix the typos in photoshop? why make a fake poster for The Stepford Wives??)

    some notes:

    • i’m not entirely convinced the revulsion response in women can be explained entirely as a reflective recognition of the subjected female self. maybe it’s also because AI art is entirely bland and/or fuck ugly

    • some reproductive labors, in the Marxist-feminist sense, are getting subsumed by AI, sure, but they’re largely the ones that already got subsumed by the computer. we had pagers with scheduling and appointment reminders in the 80’s. about the only thing an LLM can do that our previous tech couldn’t is the customer service / “emotional labor” part, albeit poorly. and the other labors are non-optional – my laundry actually does have to go in the dryer, and no matter how many plastic pictures of clean clothes i generate, they can’t actually go in my closet.

    • speaking of, the article appears to use a mangled paraphrase of that Joanna Maciejewska tweet (“I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes”), and then attributes it to “AI enthusiasts” (ew).

    • the article notes that reproductive labor is coded feminine and that the assistants that (attempt to) do this labor are designed female, with feminine voices and affects, despite being, y’know, robots. and not women. the next step to me would be to note that this isn’t just reflecting the subjectification of the female and the designation of women to a particular labor class, but actually aiding to construct and reproduce the subject of “female” itself too. maybe throw some Butler in there. but we just breeze right past this. no third-wave? i don’t see any feminist arguments past the 80’s in here

    • the typography of wives is total bullshit. “The Open-Source Wife” fuuuuucccckk offfff. but. BUT. i do think there is something correct in there about xAI/Grok/Ani basically being the modern adaptation of Vivian James

    • there’s an argument that obviously used to be about AI art, and got transmogrified into a nonsense concept, bordering on colorless green ideas.

    Women’s labor is being extracted, automated, and sold back without credit.

    • the nonsense below it about “alignment” clearly intends to imply that the machines are only faking being our friends / submissive wives(!!1!).

    • but this is okay because women are uniquely suited to interface with AI! this is because (all) women (innately) communicate with the goal of building relationships (female) instead of the utilitarian (manly) execution of transactions (male). there’s an odd essentialist undercurrent that’s not really being challenged here, despite the fact that that would render “female robots” impossible

    • “outsource-maxxing” fuuuuuucuk youuuuuuu

    • the conclusion of the article is basically “women are uniquely capable of interacting with (female) AI because they’ve BEEN the female AI”, with a call-to-action for women to basically… well. resume that role, except now using the AI as your girlbestfriend.