The cadence in this article makes me think this is literally an human edited AI post. Like the prompt to a middle school essay 'Choose a trope from American History or Literature and then chose a president who embodies that!"
You might be on to something. The article is filled with similar stuff. Here there are the trite "politically salient", "Insofar as it resonates", "core mythologies" that tend to be pompous and silly silly but in addition they feel kind of forced.
The imagery is politically salient. Insofar as it resonates with his supporters, it may be an indication not that they are indifferent to our political tradition but rather that they are drawn to one of its core mythologies — and it suggests that attempts to use the legal system to defeat him politically will backfire.
In the pre-AI reality - such words and phrases would show that writer tried very hard to sound smart after he googled for words and terms to copy. But now it's certainly possible he let the AI write it and then he used google to smooth things out. In that case I wonder which stuff was his and which was AI's.
---
Edit
It really does have an AI uncanny valley vibe.
For those whose inclination is to trust and respect the American legal system, Mr. Trump’s mug shot, in which he defiantly glowers at the camera, may seem to lack humility. But for some others, the image may be a sign that he understands what it’s like to be on the wrong side of the law. The rapper Lil Pump has apparently had the image tattooed on his leg. The same is true of the rapper Bandman Kevo, who publicized his new body art with a recording likening himself to the candidate. (“Like Donald Trump, do what I want.”)
Bit idea: You are Chapo Trap House (yes all of them at once) having to make fun of article writing nerds from The Federalist but have to parse though what's real and what's generated by AI.
Do I have to? That sounds hellish. I assume AI writing (that's been human tweaked) is already a norm for many writers. Using it can save a lot of time and a lot of effort. If you're unethical, immoral, and greedy - why wouldn't you use AI? I imagine any Federalist writer who doesn't use it - does so because they are too vain. Toxic right-wingers are nothing if not vain. They think they are god's gift to humankind.
The hellish stuff is what makes the bit funny, I would assume. Schadenfreude and all that jazz.
It's still amazing to me that we popularized well tuned chatbots, and it is killing digital human interactions because half the chatbots can pass a turning test while half the actual humans on the internet can't.
half the chatbots can pass a turning test while half the actual humans on the internet can't.
Holy crap - I never thought of it that way. I've had some odd convos at Bluesky because I couldn't figure out what the people meant. And asking for clarification resulted in silence or stuff that kept me confused. And now I wonder if any perfectly normal posts I've seen were actually chatbots. Posts easily could have been. The future is going to get weirder as chatbots get better and more people get worse.
The cadence in this article makes me think this is literally an human edited AI post. Like the prompt to a middle school essay 'Choose a trope from American History or Literature and then chose a president who embodies that!"
You might be on to something. The article is filled with similar stuff. Here there are the trite "politically salient", "Insofar as it resonates", "core mythologies" that tend to be pompous and silly silly but in addition they feel kind of forced.
In the pre-AI reality - such words and phrases would show that writer tried very hard to sound smart after he googled for words and terms to copy. But now it's certainly possible he let the AI write it and then he used google to smooth things out. In that case I wonder which stuff was his and which was AI's.
---
Edit
It really does have an AI uncanny valley vibe.
Bit idea: You are Chapo Trap House (yes all of them at once) having to make fun of article writing nerds from The Federalist but have to parse though what's real and what's generated by AI.
Do I have to? That sounds hellish. I assume AI writing (that's been human tweaked) is already a norm for many writers. Using it can save a lot of time and a lot of effort. If you're unethical, immoral, and greedy - why wouldn't you use AI? I imagine any Federalist writer who doesn't use it - does so because they are too vain. Toxic right-wingers are nothing if not vain. They think they are god's gift to humankind.
The hellish stuff is what makes the bit funny, I would assume. Schadenfreude and all that jazz.
It's still amazing to me that we popularized well tuned chatbots, and it is killing digital human interactions because half the chatbots can pass a turning test while half the actual humans on the internet can't.
Holy crap - I never thought of it that way. I've had some odd convos at Bluesky because I couldn't figure out what the people meant. And asking for clarification resulted in silence or stuff that kept me confused. And now I wonder if any perfectly normal posts I've seen were actually chatbots. Posts easily could have been. The future is going to get weirder as chatbots get better and more people get worse.
Lil Pump and Bandman Kevo have tattoos of Donnie? Did anyone proofread this shit?