- 0 Posts
- 17 Comments
1·20 days agoWe’re past blasting, so 2018. Now we’re on flaying.
Of course you would, probably at least the first two or three times, that’s why they’re on this trend.
Slam not getting enough clicks anymore, people know “slam” means “gentle rebuke.” Now it’s flay, pillory. At this rate, some time in 2028 we can expect “mild procedural admonition” to be replaced with something like “set off nuclear munitions over home of,” eg. “Judge Obliterates Defendant’s Entire Hometown With a White Phosphor Bomb in Searing Ruling Over Unpaid Parking Fines.” gotta get them clicks
A law without a mechanism of enforcement is just a suggestion.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatgpt-is-changing-the-words-we-use-in-conversation/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/08/20/chatgpt-claude-chatbots-language/
https://www.theverge.com/openai/686748/chatgpt-linguistic-impact-common-word-usage
chatgpt favored a few articles in its training data that used “its not x – its y” more than others. it was sheer accident and coincidence to begin with, but is now being cemented into the language by chatgpt’s relative ubiquity and a feedback mechanism where new training data contains this artifact, increasing its favorability in subsequent models. I’m not saying that the phrase didn’t exist before chatgpt. it’s not a seismic shift in language patterns – It’s a feedback mechanism. The same feedback mechanism causes it to prefer “it’s not” vs “it isn’t” despite there being no grammatical distinction between them. “It’s not” was presumably slightly more popular among the training data it (or rather, its trainers) happened to favor during initial training. The same feedback mechanism causes it to write metaphor like a bored, not-particularly-bright college student in a poetry class they’re taking just for the credit.
edit: shibboleth
more edits: everything after “it’s not a seismic shift in language patterns – it’s a feedback mechanism”
Woe unto them. They sound like ChatGPT now.
This headline brought to you by ChatGPT
I saw that and assumed it was an onion headline…
Is nobel pretty corrupt?
Thats great for comey and all, but the concern was for Ms James.
Right, but… who? It seems like a lie, or wishful thinking; It’s exactly the kind of thing I’d like to believe, which makes me instantly suspicious.
Digging a little deeper, here’s the original quote. Jake Sherman is a journalist, who attributes the quote to “a senior house republican.”
To whom was that long stream of quotation supposed to be attributed?
It’s slop. Read the bill for yourself to decide what you think of it.
Hey yo, can someone with image editing skills turn that thumbnail of sad miller into a sad clown please?