Twitter – If there is something

Less robot than robot

In a new study researchers claim AI generated social media text appears more human than actual human text. Participants in the study were tasked with looking at tweets and identifying whether the tweet was composed by a human or AI. The study found subjects were more likely to ascribe human origins to AI tweets than those written by actual humans.

“The most surprising discovery was that participants often perceived information produced by AI as more likely to come from a human, more often than information produced by an actual person. This suggests that AI can convince you of being a real person more than a real person can convince you of being a real person, which is a fascinating side finding of our study,” said Federico Germani of the University of Zurich, one of the authors of the study.

Considering that Twitter has long been associated with humanity at its finest and most authentic, the study’s findings are startling. Nowhere does every facet of human potential and excellence shine more brightly than on Twitter with users pouring every available shred of their being and complexity into the 280 characters that form a single tweet. Indeed, it would seem that on a digital platform it is possible for AI models like ChatGPT to appear more human than humans.

However, while Federico Germani is stroking himself over his team’s finding that “AI can convince you of being a real person more than a real person can convince you of being a real person,” perhaps they are misinterpreting the results of their little experiment. Maybe it’s the case that humans don’t operate all that well in a digital space. Maybe it’s the digital realm itself that limits and compromises the human capacity to fully realize and reveal itself, enabling robots to plausibly mimic humans. Maybe it’s just the case that humans suck at being robots.

The internet in general and social media in particular funnel users into producing a low resolution representation of themselves. In many respects these platforms constrain human potential, dumbing down and fitting it into a neat little avatar, which is easy for AI to mimic and even manipulate. Of course the tech gods, governments and corporate controllers would like us to migrate our lives as much as possible onto these platforms. There in the digital realm humans are more or less just a shadow of the self that exists in the material realm, a shadow that can be more easily controlled by artificial intelligence, less robot than robot.

“Hey, brother, can you spare a square?” Business Insider drops explosive Twitter files bathroom bomb

Move over Matt Taibbi. You’ve just been scooped by the princess of poop. Business Insider’s Kali Hays today dropped a load so fetid and scandalous it’s sure to create some early P.U.litzer buzz.

While Taibbi & Co. have been exposing efforts by the FBI and sitting U.S. Congressman to censor Twitter accounts and to have journalists removed from the social media platform, Kali Hays has been combing through troves of Twitter emails and explosive internal Slack messages that reveal a company on the brink of mutiny.

According to Hays’ two sources, Twitter offices in New York and San Francisco are dealing with clogged commodes and may be just days away from running completely out of toilet paper. Conditions at these locations have become so desperate that employees are standing out on the sidewalk begging passersby to spare a square.

In response, Twitter CEO Elon Musk has issued a companywide directive requiring all restroom visitors adhere to a strict two square per visit limit with a cap of three restroom visits per day. This is said to be causing quite a hardship in New York, but sources in San Francisco say it’s not a problem because everybody’s allowed to just shit outdoors on the sidewalk anyway.

Hays also reports that her sources embedded inside the bathrooms at Twitter are noticing that the normally soft and fluffy two-ply toilet paper is being replaced with a coarser single-ply. The result is that employees are finding it difficult to sit at their terminals for extended periods of time.

In response, Twitter CEO Elon Musk has issued a companywide directive that all employees shall be transitioned to stand-up terminals effective immediately.

Sam Harris can’t stop talking about his ex

Sam Harris devoted his latest podcast to airing some unresolved feelings toward his old flame, Twitter. Remarking that leaving Twitter is like leaving a bad relationship, Harris again rehashed the issues and circumstances that led to their break up, and also added some thoughts about his ex’s recent behavior. For a man who claims his personal well-being has benefited from cutting ties with the social media platform, he still seems to spend a fair amount of time thinking about it.

That said, there was little to disagree with for the first ten minutes of his rant. Everything he said about Trump’s behavior as president, Republican capture by the cult of Trump and the Democrat’s bewildering devotion to identitarianism seems pretty spot on. However, he can’t resist picking up a stick and beating that old dead horse that was at least partially responsible for his Twitter break up. Once again he defends Twitter’s suppression of the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story, even going so far as to point out how much Twitter executives agonized over censoring the story. Golly, we should all thank our lucky stars we’re never confronted with making such a difficult decision.

Sam Harris claims to care about free speech. He also claims to care about the integrity of this country’s institutions. No one’s saying we should just let Twitter become 4-chan. But social media companies censoring mainstream media institutions is an attack on those institutions and an attack on free speech. Whatever you think about the New York Post, it’s been around doing journalism for a long time. Twitter executives and content moderators in the Philippines have no business second guessing the work of a mainstream media outlet. This should not be controversial. This isn’t a matter of hindsight. The New York Post did its homework on the story and any other media outlet could have as well. Let the Post live or die by its reporting. Twitter and Facebook should be under no obligation to censor mainstream reporting. They should, in fact, have an obligation to let it circulate, if they respect our country’s journalistic institutions and care at all about free speech or public debate.

Moreover, suppressing or censoring the contributions of Stanford and Harvard professors to the public debate over health policy is hugely scandalous and constitutes an attack on their profession and the institutions they represent. When did content moderators become the ultimate arbiters of what is acceptable public discourse in health policy debate? What expertise do they possess over doctors who represent America’s leading educational institutions? How are social media companies not undermining these institutions by pursuing censorship policies? Let these doctors face the criticism of their peers, but the Twitter execs should stay out of it.

It is bewildering that Sam Harris, who claims to be a man of rationality and reason, would defend these censorship policies on his “Making Sense” podcast. In both of the previously cited examples, the suppressed and censored turned out to be largely correct in their assertions. Additionally, they were making these assertions from a position of knowledge and expertise, not in an environment where nothing was known. By not respecting experts, their professions and their institutions, Twitter, Facebook and defenders of their reckless decisions, like Sam Harris, do harm to our institutions and undermine their own credibility in the process.

Musk acquires Bullshit Mountain for $44 billion

Residents of Bullshit Mountain are fleeing in droves on news that tech multi-billionaire Elon Musk is purchasing the towering pile of crap that has fed and nurtured them for over a decade. Musk is reportedly paying $44 billion for the social media platform which anyone with an ounce of sense knows is about $43.95 billion too much.

The most prominent natives of Bullshit Mountain, who contribute nearly 90% of the excrement that flows from its rivers and streams out into the rest of society, are concerned about what might happen to their precious dung heap now that the Tesla CEO and free speech promoter is about to seize control.

Many prominent journalists, politicians, media and entertainment personalities have pledged to flee the platform in protest. Apparently, this nurturing land of inclusion and unquestioning acceptance that they have so lovingly crafted over the years is now in jeopardy of turning into a psychically abusive hell-hole.

Moreover, the political and intellectual elites who routinely mine truth from Bullshit Mountain are worried that the open inquiry and constructive debate they have so carefully cultivated will become irreparably harmed by Musk’s commitment to “free speech”.

As the old saying goes, “All politics and culture is downstream from Bullshit Mountain.” Judging by the frantic behavior of its inhabitants, our golden age of truth and discourse may be coming to an end.

Insider article halts production at Pottermore Publishing

The ancient, rusted printing press at Pottermore Publishing rests covered in cobwebs this morning, and the old inky-fingered typesetter is out looking for other employment following new revelations outlined in Pam Segall’s recent Insider piece “There is no good way to introduce ‘Harry Potter’ to the next generation.”

Segall, a self-described millennial Potterhead, claims the Harry Potter magic is dead, killed by its creator’s malicious spells transmitted via Twitter in 2020. Furthermore, according to Segall, J.K. Rowling’s assault on the Potter magic goes back as far as 2018 when the Harry Potter author “liked” a “couple of offensive tweets” cast by other like-minded magic killers.

In probably one of the more relevant assertions of the piece, Segall says of Rowling, “Her actions disenchanted scores of fans, who have struggled to figure out what to do with their love for the series given the controversy around its creator.” Meaning some multiple of twenty fans is experiencing the same emotional difficulty and confusion described by Segall in this piece.

Having not been a millennial Potterhead in the late nineties, but rather a gen-x pothead too old for Harry Potter, it is difficult for me to fully appreciate Segall’s sense of disenchantment and loss. However, it must be darn near impossible to maintain a sense of magic and possibility when you’re swallowing all that ideological bullshit Segall’s been feasting on.

After bringing up about four or five of Rowling’s inclusivity infractions across all the Harry Potter works, Segall succinctly summarizes how the magic came to be drained from Potterland for Segall and the 20, 40, 80 or so other disenchanted fans. “In a series that spans thousands of pages and often provides minute details, the thought that Rowling couldn’t spare a few words to mention a character’s race or sexuality already seems preposterous,” Segall writes.

Indeed it is preposterous. Because everyone knows that beginning at some fixed date in 2016 or 2017 it became a cultural imperative that every children’s book detail the race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality of each of the book’s characters. The fact that some books don’t include these details is a colossal failure of imagination. Everyone knows that for a budding young reader to truly understand what makes characters tick, the author must include the character’s race or sexuality. Furthermore, it would be ideal if their distribution across the works would reflect the demographics of today’s modern society, even if the story is set in some other time and place, or some altogether made up realm.

It is Segall’s contention that Rowling’s bigotry has imposed itself on the Harry Potter works, thus releasing all the magic that has enchanted readers for nearly 25 years now. She calls this “the intrusion of real life” onto the works and concludes, “When we introduce the real world to the Wizarding World, we inherently drain some of its magic.” Setting aside whether or not Rowling’s tweets and likes are offensive, why is it that we are dragging the real world into the wizarding world again? It seems to me, again from the perspective of a former pothead and not a Potterhead, that often when you drag the contemporary world into the make believe world, you run the risk of disrupting the illusion. I don’t know, someone once told me that magic isn’t real, but often I can set aside that reality and enjoy tales of kick ass magic and wizardry anyway.

By the way, asserting that biological sex is real, and criticizing the phrase “people who menstruate” as a dehumanizing term for women is entirely within the bounds of mainstream thought and opinion. Among readers of Harry Potter books, there is nothing controversial about Rowling’s remarks and sales of her books reflect it. Currently, her most recent children’s book ranks #6 on Amazon and the Harry Potter box set ranks #16 in children’s books.

Still Segall writes: “Some fans treasure their existing copies of the beloved series while refusing to purchase anything new to support Rowling financially. For others, the books lie obscured and discarded, awaiting a fate yet to be determined.” I’m sure Segall wants this to be true because Segall and a few colleagues and friends feel this way, but this is clearly an example of magical thinking, dragging the world of belief and illusion into the real world.

Looking forward to a world without Harry Potter, Segall writes, “the best we can hope is that these conversations inspire the next generation to foster fully inclusive magic and create a more perfect version of this fantasy world.” No doubt this world would be fully embraced by the public if it were as imaginative, entertaining and enchanting as the Harry Potter books. However, the biggest obstacle facing this hypothetical work would most likely come from critics like Segall and company. Because they measure out their inclusivity in teaspoons and there is seldom enough of it in any work. Additionally, given the arbitrary formulation and constantly shifting nature of the inclusivity regulations, there is little doubt that if such a work as Segall describes were to set the reading world on fire, a new group of puritans would emerge to douse the flames.

From the sales of her Harry Potter books, J.K. Rowling has donated literally scores of millions of dollars to support research and treatment of multiple sclerosis. That’s some multiple of 20 million dollars of her own money. Additionally, she has used her platform to raise money to fight poverty, support children’s welfare and advocate on behalf of victims of domestic abuse. Segall and company seem unable wrap their heads around that magic, preferring instead to do the work of depriving Rowling of her powers to generate millions for those in need. I’m sure there’s some villainous character in Harry Potter who tried to steal or otherwise thwart the magic of those who sought to do good, but I wouldn’t know the name of that character because I was too busy taking bong hits and reading detective novels. Regardless, how does it feel, Segall, to become a villain in one of your formerly beloved Harry Potter books? There’s a story you can introduce to the next generation.

After a year of isolation and obscurity, celebrities are finally getting some long-overdue attention

Although the past year has been difficult for most American’s, nowhere has the year of isolation and loneliness been felt more acutely than among our nation’s celebrities. Deprived of regular doses of attention, flattery and fawning adulation, the selfless celebrities tirelessly toiling in America’s entertainment industry are about to receive some much-deserved recognition for their work over the past twelve months. While getting likes on Twitter, or whatever the equivalent is on Instagram, can provide microdoses of soothing admiration from fans, there is nothing like the vanity inducing rush of posing on the red carpet, bathed in bursts of light from hundreds of flashbulbs. Finally, with awards season upon us, our nation’s celebrities will be seen and appreciated for giving so much of themselves and asking so little in return. In the spirit of sacrifice so many Americans have been called upon to endure this year, celebrities are forgoing the $50,000 swag bags in favor of more modest $5000 bags of swag. It really gives one the sense that we’re all in this together, and that famous people are no different than the little guy. Oprah really brought that feeling home during her interview with the Earl and Countess of Dumbarton. Who couldn’t relate to throwing one’s family under a red, double-decker London Bus for some short-term fame and notoriety? It’s refreshing to see a prince and a princess who no longer care to attach themselves to their royal titles, wanting only to live like the rest of the common folk, do Oprah interviews and be famous for being famous. Yes, soon the stars will be out and the press and entertainment industry will honor them with richly-deserved statues of gold. For its part, the public can brace itself for yet another year of mundane remakes, uninspired sequels, and Marvel movies.

Facing irrelevance and unemployment, resistance media to pursue a “What if Trump had won?” project called Man on the High Escalator

Now that a Trump coup in January seems unlikely, some members of the media are scrambling to figure out what they’re going to do for the next four years. Journalists and commentators at HuffPost, Buzzfeed, Vox and MSNBC face the very real threat of extinction now that they’ve defeated fascism with their panicked reporting and merciless tweeting.

But what if they didn’t topple the dictator? What if in some parallel reality Trump prevailed and the United States is still suffering under the capricious dictates of a ruthless authoritarian? That’s the premise of a new television series being shopped around by a group of intrepid journos who are currently out of things to lose their shit over.

“Man on the High Escalator should allow us to continue cashing in on Trump hysteria for years to come,” said one reporter connected to the project. “It’s pretty much going to be nap time at the White House for the foreseeable future. Anyway, criticizing Biden will get your Twitter account locked, as we’ve seen with the New York Post. So Man on the High Escalator gives us a creative outlet to continue to cultivate a high level of Trump induced anxiety.”

The story will focus on a band of scrappy resistance journalists, forced by a repressive Trump regime to confine their words and reporting to widely viewed social media platforms, popular cable news television programs and freely available digital media websites. Their stories will shine a light of truth on the Trump administration’s brutal authoritarian crackdown against any whiff of dissent, including the arrest of demonstrators who are often detained for hours and released without charges.

Fighting fascism can be a lonely business. Especially when your movement can rely only on the support of former Democratic establishment officials in exile, a number of the world’s largest and most powerful tech companies, and many current and former senior officials of the national security state. Yet somehow these meagre few heroes of the underground take up the fight day after day and aim their Twitter fury at the heart of the tyrant.

Look for Man on the High Escalator, coming soon to a streaming service near you.

‘Word-salad’ deciphering algorithm expected in time for Trump/Biden debates

Competing teams of programmers at Google and Facebook have been working furiously in recent months to develop an algorithm capable of deciphering, in real time, the seemingly random jumbles of words that flow from the mouths of Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

With the election just months away, the stakes are high as Americans have a short attention span for meandering nostalgic musings and barely comprehensible babble. Network producers are hoping to unveil the new technology at upcoming debates so the candidates’ responses to debate questions can be interpreted and transmitted to viewers in real time.

“Currently, the process of arriving at an answer to the question, ‘What the hell did he just say?’ involves dozens of journalists and commentators breaking down the candidate’s most confusing utterances and speculating for days, even weeks, about what the candidate may have meant. The process often involves mining past statements, pointing to the candidate’s record, or pulling from their personal history to provide even the faintest glimmer of clarity,” said MSNBC producer Cheryl Woodhouse.

Anders Gerital, head of senior special projects at Google expects the new technology to do away with all the needless speculation and guesswork. “Utilizing advanced algorithms, the work of hundreds of humans can be done instantaneously. Debate viewers will know in real time what the candidates are trying to say, even if the candidates don’t know themselves. The algorithm has access to the entire body of each candidate’s public pronouncements as well as all available private correspondence and decision-making. It will rely heavily on communications from a time when each candidate was much more lucid than they are currently. The technology will be able to literally start and finish their sentences.”

The project aims to eventually create digital copies to be utilized in case the commander-in-chief becomes incapacitated, or to assist the president in carrying out his ceremonial duties.

“We’re already 85% complete toward having each man’s consciousness digitally downloaded,” added one Facebook developer. “It’s actually remarkable how little server space each man’s brain occupies. You could literally carry Donald Trump around on a thumb drive.”

That’s reassuring to campaign staff. However, most of their communication team are just delighted they will no longer have to go on Twitter or cable news and clean up after one of their bosses’ word-salad explosions.

“Half the time I feel like a clown with a pooper-scooper, following my boss around and cleaning up after he shits out yet another load of nonsense,” said one Biden staffer.

Pelosi deputy chief of staff astonished at video editing technology

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff Drew Hammill expressed his amazement Friday over a video making the rounds on Facebook showing President Trump delivering the State of the Union address interspersed with images of Pelosi ripping up the speech.

“What these clever young fellows have done is take the entire State of the Union speech, extract a few short video clips, and then somehow piece them back together again, thereby creating a condensed version with only the most noteworthy parts. I’m at a loss for words,” said Hammill in a statement directed at the popular social networking sites Facebook and Twitter.

“But get this,” Hammill continued, “these ingenious lads pieced it together in such a way that turns the dramatic moment of Pelosi ripping up the speech against her. How clever is that?”

Hammill could barely contain his disbelief. “What is this foul magic they harness to rearrange video and reassemble it for their own nefarious purposes? Whatever it is, the Democrats need to get their hands on it. Think of the possibilities. We could snip short clips of some of President Trump’s most outrageous and deplorable moments and reassemble them into a montage of disgrace and disrepute. This could be a political game-changer. No longer would the viewer have to sit through hours and hours of tape just to get to the juicy bits. We could turn the president’s words against him. I am really going to have to work on this,” Hammill concluded.