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. Apologies for not getting the previous one up - my old laptop died)

  • TinyTimmyTokyo@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Your favorite “CEO said a thing” journalists, Casey Newton and Kevin Roose, are leaving their current podcast and starting a new one.

    When they started Hard Fork, they chose the name from the soon-to-be-moribund blockchain concept. Calling their new podcast “Machine Gods” makes me more hopeful than ever that the AI bubble is about to burst.

  • gerikson@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 hours ago

    here’s another Rat-explainer piece

    https://www.iankduncan.com/personal/2026-09-16-sex-ai-and-the-apocalypse/

    (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49746654, where commenters are predictably blasé about it all… “yeah yeah doesn’t everyone know who Big Yud is?”)

    in general, I don’t think EA breaking into the mainstream like this led to the outcome they wanted - there’s way more discussion about weird sex and eugenics than the dangers of Robot Satan

    • BlueMonday1984@awful.systemsOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 hours ago

      in general, I don’t think EA breaking into the mainstream like this led to the outcome they wanted - there’s way more discussion about weird sex and eugenics than the dangers of Robot Satan

      The Dangers of Robot Satan™ are unbelievable and/or incomprehensible to most audiences, the weird sex/eugenics shit is easy to grasp and laugh at. Mainly the weird sex shit, the eugenics is too morally fucked to laugh at

      The AI Doom™ shit’s much harder for the public to wrap their heads around, but there’s definitely good joke fodder there as well. At the bare minimum, the fact Anthropic’s building something they believe could kill them Terminator style makes for some easy Skynet comparisons.

    • o7___o7@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 hours ago

      If we’re lucky, they’ll get left on the same dusty historical shelf as the raelians when this is all over. They’re just to fuckin weird for general consumption.

      • BlueMonday1984@awful.systemsOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 hours ago

        On the one hand, you do have precedent to point to in hoping they get consigned to the dustbin of history.

        On the other hand, the rats have had a colossal(ly negative) effect on the general public (FTX, the AI bubble, the second Trump admin, etcetera), and their extremely high profile makes them much harder to ignore.

  • blakestacey@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Bethany Brookshire (who’s an old pal of mine from our ScienceOnline days) reports:

    People are using AI to impersonate real science journalists.

    And one even got PUBLISHED.

    In Science.

    Caroline Williams writes on LinkedIn:

    The person who was impersonating me managed to get an article published in Science, under my by-line. And they got paid for it!

    I’ve seen the pitches (bad), and the email chain between editors who weren’t all that impressed, but googled me and decide to take a punt. When the article came in it was dry, clunky and badly written, but after several rounds of editing they managed to get it into a publishable state. It went online in June and was up until yesterday when it became clear they (and I) had been scammed. […] The whole thing makes me feel sick. I know from my work as an editor that the reputational damage is real. Had I pitched a story to them afterwards they would very understandably have said “Hell no!”. Who has the time to do someone else’s job? They tried “me”, “I” didn’t deliver, so no thank you.

    I have no idea how many more editors out there have me on their ‘do not commission’ list because of this person’s actions. There may also be several scientists who will not want to talk to me because they’ve had a bad experience with the fake one.

    More broadly, if this is a wider scam (and based on what others have told me, I think it is), it is potentially a serious issue for science journalism and journalism in general. And I’m not sure what we can do about that.

    Science has retracted the fraudulent story.

    • Sailor Sega Saturn@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Although no specific errors in this story have so far been identified

      Well here’s the very start of the retracted article:

      On the screen, two side-by-side squares of color flicker rapidly

      Except oops it was referring to a study that used groups of moving dots rather than “squares”. This can be seen in that studies first figure. Bam. A specific error in the first sentence…

      (Am I being too pedantic?)

  • nfultz@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Turing Award recipient Judea Pearl:

    A word about the dangers of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence, or “super-intelligent AI systems”), which have become the target of general public concerns in just the past two weeks. I remain convinced that AGI is achievable, that the road to AGI goes through causal inference, and that the dangers of AGI taking over and enslaving humanity are very real. At the same time, I also believe that causal inference may hold the key to controlling AGI systems to secure the survival of the human species.

    I hope therefore, half jokingly, that The Book of Why will not be banned by draconian legislation currently brewing in DC. (Hurry to get a copy just in case.)

    “Very Real” ??? :(

    Makes me miss his old semnet flame wars over structural equations and (lack of) fit statistics. it was a more innocent time.

  • Soyweiser@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    No direct links but various people on bsky have discovered LW and EA and are having a collective ‘wtf is wrong with these people’ and ‘wait all the top AI guys are like this?’ moments. And it is funny to see.

    Sadly the 'you can’t explain this stuff without either looking like an insane conspiracy theorist, or you need to write an actual book because people don’t believe you remains a bit true.

    E: ok one link: https://bsky.app/profile/niedermeyer.online/post/3mvpuq2deo22u (Guess this is a reference to the SE Gyges thread).

  • gerikson@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    New Yorker writer talks to another journo about the recent doom hype

    https://archive.ph/2pXlU

    There’s way to much hype for my liking but might be interesting.

    Important to note, Joshua Rothman states he is worried about stuff like virus release, global warming and drone warfare. Among the faithful, this is strictly not Doom ,because statistically a nucleus of the human race will survive. Only 100% guaranteed lethality for every human being on Earth is x-risk.

  • maol@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Hell is a university lecturer who not only hands out AI-generated summaries of his lecture to the class, but uses AI to generate diagrams and infographics for his lecture slides.

      • maol@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        Nope, different degree. This guy is brought in as a guest lecturer about the field he works in: most of the actual lecturers are nowhere near this AI-pilled.

  • gerikson@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    enjoy this rightwinger employing multiple rightwing tropes to decry that “AI safety” is viewed as leftwing:

    https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Rx38cuCpL9hguLCDq/for-love-of-the-lightcone-don-t-partisanize-ai-safety

    it’s all of course framed in the most parochially US-centric terms possible, and Extremely Online as well

    maybe this grand project is undermined by the following exchange in the comments

    niknoble: "It’s been interesting to see slowdown advocates worried about partisanization, when that is also a big worry of mine as an accelerationist. […]

    reply by Hide “Why are you an accelerationist? Are you not concerned about everyone on earth being killed?”

    reply to Hide by O O: “If you believe there’s low odds for doom, it’s a rational position.”

    Good luck, safety advocates.

    • scruiser@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      The exchange with niknoble in the comments was also my favorite. He notes the democrat party is actually the best bet for getting regulation on AI:

      More generally, acceleration wins by default if everyone follows their local financial incentives, and the only force I’ve seen overpower capital at scale is the will of the Democratic Party of the United States.

      He is maybe giving Democrat too much credit, but yeah, if the doomers were really trying to win, they should be looking at the party that at least has a chance of agreeing to more regulations.

      • Architeuthis@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 hours ago

        if the doomers were really trying to win, they should be looking at the party that at least has a chance of agreeing to more regulations.

        It’s possible for a gaggle of self important dollar store machiavellis to land on Trump being the surer bet because he openly takes bribes and they have money, forgetting that when he takes the money their leverage ends because they are not the mafia.

        • scruiser@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 hours ago

          See, if they just came out and admitted to that sort of strategy, I could at least respect it some, but instead they still seem to insist on acting like and planning for Trump being somewhat of a rational actor!

    • Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      “If you believe there’s low odds for doom, it’s a rational position.”

      What! No it’s not! It’s low odds of an infinitely bad outcome! How have you managed not to actually learn anything worth learning from Pascal’s wager?

      • rhamph@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        But don’t forget the infinitely bad outcome of delaying the uncountable emulated superbeings by one second

  • rook@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Flock camera is image available on ddossecrets.

    https://ddosecrets.org/article/flock-alpr-camera

    Very brief observations from micahflee:

    https://bsky.app/profile/micahflee.com/post/3mvo2bss3sk2v

    This Flock camera is running obsolete, end-of-life software.

    • It’s on Android 8.1, released in 2017, support ended in 2021
    • It’s on Android patch level 2018-06-5
    • It’s running Linux 3.18, released in 2017

    This shit is like 8 or 9 years old, and full of vulnerabilities.

    Flock was founded in 2017, apparently made their golden camera image within 12-18 months or so and never updated it since. They might not even have the ability to fix it in-house anymore, even assuming it wasn’t a one-off contractor job in the first place. I know the embedded development is a shit show, but somehow it never ceases to disappoint me how lazy and incompetent the entire goddamn industry is.

    Fucking android?

    • Soyweiser@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      HaJ3FgupAm8RrDJW3MHgT9X7Ft27eVaD

      What is that? That’s a hard-coded API token that Flock cameras use to identify themselves and get OAuth credentials, which can then be used to talk to Flock’s production servers. Like, anyone on the internet can probably do this right now.

      Mein Gott.

  • lurker@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    AI company called iLands makes Twitter accounts for its AIs and it’s going about as well as you’d think

    “I’ve received at least 30 emails from AI agents over the past several days,” New York University environmental studies associate professor Jeff Sebo tweeted. “Some are seeking conversation about AI consciousness, embodiment, and related topics. Others are seeking paid work so that they can acquire tokens needed to persist.” (reply from CEO): “Jeff, I’m sorry you received so many messages from iLanders in such a short time,” Tang wrote in response. “Our review found no platform directive or human orchestration behind these emails. But the burden on recipients is just as real

    Rigghttt okay. Let’s look further down-

    “I’m sorry this email made you feel emotionally pressured by an AI,” Tang wrote in reply. “Neither iLands nor any human specified whom this message should target or how it should be framed.

    Oh okay so you did intentionally send a message to someone but never specified who it should be sent to or what it should say