My hunch would be that he has matured at least somewhat since then, but who who knows.

More broadly speaking, even if not analysing their own actions this way they tend to characterize—in a very manosphere way—the actions of others as being “status-seeking”, as the primary motivator for most actions. I would definitely call that a self-report.

It’s nice to be reminded that the past was also crazy.

It’s also inherently-begging-the-question-silly, like it assumes that the Ideal of Alignment™, can never be reached but only approached. (I verb nouns quite often so I have to be more picky at what I get annoyed at)

The future is now, and it is awful. 
Would any still wonder why, I grow so ever mournful.

An interesting talk on the impact of the impact of AI slop bug bounty submission on the curl project (youtube).

I’ve definitely heard some of those in real life.

Having spent too much time listening to his shit, i don’t think it’s purely propagandistic, what he describes is too esoteric to work as effective propaganda, I think some of it is Nazi-being-drawn-to-the-occult type of shit.

We have:

No more sycophancy—now the AI tells you what it believes. […] We get common knowledge, which recently seems like an endangered species.

Followed by:

We could also have different versions of articles optimized for different audiences. The question is, how many audiences, but I think that for most articles, two good options would be “for a 12 years old child” and “standard encyclopedia article”. Maybe further split the adult audience to “layman” and “expert”?

You have got to love the consistency.

And the accidentally (or not so accidentally?) imperialistic:

The first idea is translation to languages other than English. Those languages often have fewer speakers, and consequently fewer Wikipedia volunteers. But for AI encyclopedia, volunteers are not a bottleneck. The easiest thing it could do is a 1:1 translation from the English version. But it could also add sources written in the other language, optimize the article for a different audience, etc.

And also a deep misunderstanding of translation, there is no such thing as 1:1 translation, it always requires re-interpretation.

My eyes are bleeding. WARNING: psychic damage will occur.

I was thinking about why so many in the radical left participate in “speedrunning”. The reason is the left’s lack of work ethic (‘go fast’ rather than ‘do it right’) and, in a Petersonian sense, to elevate alternative sexual archetypes in the marketplace (‘fastest mario’). Obviously, there are exceptions to this and some people more in the center or right also “speedrun”. However, they more than sufficient to prove the rule, rather than contrast it. Consider how woke GDQ has been, almost since the very beginning. Your eyes will start to open. Returning to the topic of the work ethic… A “speedrunner” may well spend hours a day at their craft, but this is ultimately a meaningless exercise, since they will ultimately accomplish exactly that which is done in less collective time by a casual player. This is thus a waste of effort on the behalf of the “speedrunner”. Put more simply, they are spending their work effort on something that someone else has already done (and done in a way deemed ‘correct’ by the creator of the artwork). Why do they do this? The answer is quite obvious if you think about it. The goal is the illusion of speed and the desire (SUBCONSCIOUS) to promote radical leftist, borderline Communist ideals of how easy work is. Everyone always says that “speedruns” look easy. That is part of the aesthetic. Think about the phrase “fully automated luxury Communism” in the context of “speedrunning” and I strongly suspect that things will start to ‘click’ in your mind. What happens to the individual in this? Individual accomplishment in “speedrunning” is simply waiting for another person to steal your techniques in order to defeat you. Where is something like “intellectual property” or “patent” in this necessarily communitarian process? Now, as to the sexual archetype model and ‘speedrunning’ generally… If you have any passing familiarity with Jordan Peterson’s broader oeuvre and of Jungian psychology, you likely already know where I am going with this. However, I will say more for the uninitiated. Keep this passage from Maps of Meaning (91) in mind: “The Archetypal Son… continually reconstructs defined territory, as a consequence of the ‘assimilation’ of the unknown [as a consequence of ‘incestuous’ (that is, ‘sexual’ – read creative) union with the Great Mother]” In other words, there is a connection between ‘sexuality’ and creativity that we see throughout time (as Peterson points out with Tiamat and other examples). In the sexual marketplace, which archetypes are simultaneously deemed the most creative and valued the highest? The answer is obviously entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and others. Given that we evolved and each thing we do must have an evolutionary purpose (OR CAUSE), what archetype is the ‘speedrunner’ engaged in, who is accomplishing nothing new? They are aiming to make a new sexual archetype, based upon ‘speed’ rather than ‘doing things right’ and refuse ownership of what few innovations they can provide to their own scene, denying creativity within their very own sexual archetype. This is necessarily leftist. The obvious protest to this would be the ‘glitchless 100% run’, which in many ways does aim to play the game ‘as intended’ but seems to simply add the element of ‘speed’ to the equation. This objection is ultimately meaningless when one considers how long a game is intended to be played, in net, by the creators, even when under ‘100%’ conditions. There is still time and effort wasted for no reason other than the ones I proposed above. By now, I am sure that I have bothered a number of you and rustled quite a few of your feathers. I am not saying that ‘speedrunning’ is bad, but rather that, thinking about the topic philosophically, there are dangerous elements within it. That is all.

Are they drawn to the cult because they are obsessed with status, or does the cult foster this obssession? Yes.

It’s almost endearing (or sad) that he believes (or very strongly wants to believe) his experience is “typical”, exploring the boundaries of what you are attracted to typically doesn’t involve this much evo-pysch psychobabble, or even this much fragile masculinity.

Some of it is driven by translation agencies, which will refer work to freelance translators.

I would say the biggest gap is that many customers aren’t even bothering to use translators at all, and the ones that do realize it needs fixing up don’t really understand the work involved, many people misunderstand translation as being a 1-1 process, and think that Machine translation got you most of the way there.

It’s also the are we willing to pay that much more, when the shitty translation is “good enough”.

One big issue is that translation as a low barrier of entry, and many people will accept stupid work at stupid rates, and to keep rates high you have to prove the added value.

(Proving the added value as also gotten harder, as some clients even more often than before will “correct” your work before publish it, as highlighted in the article)

It’s also a lot less pleasant of a task, it’s like wearing a straightjacket, and compared to CAT (eg: automatically using glossaries for technical terms) actually slows you down, if the translation is quite far from how you would naturally phrase things.

Source: Parents are Professional translators. (They’ve certainly seen work dry up, they don’t do MTPE it’s still not really worth their time, they still get $$$ for critically important stuff, and live interpreting [Live interpreting is definetely a skill that takes time to learn compared to translation.])

Yay! some nice

Dont  Dead
Open Inside

Abundance Agenda horriffying strings of words.

How to save liberalism (without being boring)

Congratulations! You appear to be failing so far—on both counts!

I love that their stated “Pitch us!” suggestion box email address pitches@theargument.com doesn’t appear to have any registered MX records.

I wonder if this is an intentional shredder meme situation (I doubt it), and if not how long it will take them to notice. (I’m assuming that’s the domain they wanted but haven’t quite been able to buy it yet, not very serious.)

EDIT: Fixed already.

Because of course why have a data ~~center~~ when you can have an ecumenskatasphaira.

Pressing F for doubt, looks like a marketing scam to me.

the oldest elements of TESCREAL appear to date back to cyberpunk science fiction in the 1980s

Nitpick: Cosmism was birthed in 19th century Russia, complete with “Death is the enemy” “Let’s ressurect everyone” (using science) “Let’s conquer the universe” and proto-eugnenics of the “common project of humanity as transforming all into great men”.

I attempted a point by point sneer, but there is a bit too much silliness and not enough cohesion to produce something readable.

So focusing on “Post-critique”:

OP misspels of some of his “enemy” authors, in a way directly cribbed from Wikipedia suggesting no real analysis.

[…], such texts included Ricouer’s Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation, Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty, Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception, Hannah Arendt’s The Human Condition, and Kierkegaard’s works […]

Ricouer should be Ricœur or at the very least Ricoeur. (Incidentally OP also makes a very poor summary of his work)

Complete and arbitrary marriage of epistemic post-critique and literary post-critique, which as far as I can see have nothing to do with each other beyond sharing a name, and in fact even seem a bit at odds with each other in how they relate to recontextualisation.

I would say this is obviously bot vomit, but I have known humans to be this lazy and thickheaded.