I mean, from the outside looking in the USA has a conservative party and a fascist party. What America says is left wing politics the rest of the world calls centrist.
exactly. The Overton window is shifting back to normalcy, but the "centrists" still want to call themselves "liberals" because they have morally normal views on the wedge isssues.
No, we don't want to be fucking led, we are not sheep.
We want our elected officials to do the job they were elected to do, a job they all keep promising to do, a job for which the position exists to do, to work for the interests of the people. Elected officials are public servants, not leaders and should be following the will of the people, not telling the people what that will should be.
Mamdani's policies aren't him leading, it's him serving, serving the interests of the people and doing what we have wanted politicians to be doing this entire time. That you confuse serving, with leading, is a weird fucking rich kid perception of what being an elected official is and it's exactly why rich ppl shouldn't hold office.
Leadership isn't herding or commanding or necessary even guiding. It certainly doesn't need to be rooted in authority. Leadership can be inspiration, knowledge, observation, deference and delegation. It can mean being a role model or a teacher. I'd argue that the people who are the most effective leaders are the ones who enable others first, and lead by example. Barking orders has awful return on investment compared to building people up.
This dude leaderships. That coulda been right outta my army leadership course, which was surprisingly less about barking orders and more about fulfilling requirements and enabling awesome.
They are, if the primary was for lower house seats, representatives. Their job (in theory) is to represent the collective wants and needs of their constituents to congress and vote or introduce bills accordingly. Unfortunately in most Western democracies this little fact seems to get forgotten by those who are elected and party politics tends to take over.
Unless you are going out there and campaigning or operationally actually doing some-fucking-thing; you absolutely do want someone to lead and fulfill your desires. If you personally are not making it happen then you want someone else to take the lead on it.
You are allowed to have a belligerent sense of independence; just don't fool yourself.
If I pay a mechanic to fix my car, that ain't them leading. If I hire a politician to enact my will, that isn't them leading. You don't have to be the one personally doing the job.
7 is the one a lot of people on the left will miss is targeted at them. Cynicism is the path to defeat, pragmatism is the path to actual change, and it almost always routes through the status quo, not around it. Mamdani didn't sit around bitching about the DNC, nor did he try to run as a third party. He met voters where where they are, and in NYC that's the Democratic party. Now he looks like a king maker. This took him barely a year, during which time showed that the establishment's power to enforce preferences is actually far more limited than many believe.
Incredible how "its not x its y" is being weaponized against critics of the establishment. Like, I really couldn't give a shit about Hunter Biden, he's a joke. Also fuck AI, I wouldn't defend it.
But what you're describing is a teaching method. Just because it gets aped by ai doesn't mean all comparisons are AI. Paulo Friere uses it heavily in his pedagogical method. It was also the name of a book series on teaching methods.. Both were written years, even decades, before the invention of generative text.
Its a basic way of explaining complicated concepts, where you not only have to describe what something is, but what it isn't. You are using a negating method by saying that the text of this tweet is actually not worth considering, because it was generated by AI. Its rhetorical sophistry, presented without evidence, to create confusion and cheapen people's ability to explain or understand complicated concepts, and criticize our own reality.
I dont agree with all of his points, but your argument is cheap and socially toxic.
Absolutely. You're right to call me out on that. It's not helpful, it's socially toxic. Also, and this is where truth combines with facts to create understanding &emdash; Hunter used Claude to write that post.
Well in the interest of good faith, this is the most coherent thing ive ever seen from Hunter, so I think either had AI write it or some wonk wrote it for him
I was listening to The Idiot Bastard Son by Zappa and the Mothers when reading the post. Pretty fun timing for ai slop from a subject in the song. Give it some years and we might see a push for him in gov
People want to be followed. Maybe there are times when the politician sees the future before the people and needs to lead. But, right now it seems like both major US political parties are stuck in the past.
What Mandami is doing is listening, not leading. That's why he's popular. He has some ideas, like city-run grocery stores. They're probably good ideas. However, what's making him really popular is doing things like making sure the streets were cleared after the snowstorms and filling potholes. That's not leadership. That's simply listening to the voters and fixing the priority issues.
Edit: current Democrat “base” is their corporate donors. So I have to qualify my statement with the idea that a social liberal/progressive will be courting the citizens, not Citizens United.
Seriously why are we reposting anything from hunter biden. Im sure theres a number of more relevant and proper progressives with better insight and analysis of the elections .
And also: capitalism is failing the majority of people by continuing to funnel wealth to those who already have money. Voters are offered a choice between two options, neither of which actually want to solve this, because both major parties are controlled by wealthy corporate donors. The two-party system prevents any third party, no matter their platform, from having any chance at election.
Democratic socialist candidates got elected in NY because Mamdani is demonstrably helping people in actual, tangible ways. The most famous example is fixing potholes. This is a breath of fresh air for voter and is the same "sewer socialism" strategy used in the first half of the 1900s in wisconsin, which focused on pragmatically improving life for the general public...famously by improving the sewer system.
"Liberal democracy" is failing, because it is an oxymoron. The concept of democracy being compatible with an economic system where every org is a plutocracy/oligarchy with enormous wealth (power) inequality, is a mass-delusional mental illness. It was never going to work on any meaningful timeline.
"Capitalism failing a majority" isn't "capitalism is failing".
The former statement is always true, because capitalism serves the winners which will always be a minority or move to become a minority if it isn't (how it got in that state is anyone's guess). The question is only how much it's failing the majority. The two's interests can align for a time, but the needs and wants of one are almost always in direct conflict with the other's. The failures currently are massive, thus why running on helping people and actually doing the job of government (its role in a so-called "mixed-economy") is working better than anti-socialist/communist rhetoric to combat it.
Soundbites are good, but so is replying to what the other person said(mostly so we don't put words in other people's mouths)
Yeah, that was some ambiguous wording on my part. To elaborate: Americans are told from birth that capitalism is this wonderful system that gives us freedom of choice, and that the free market causes the best products and the most well-run companies to prosper. This belief system is reflected in prosperity gospel, which is the same ideology but coated in a layer of religion. We americans are told that if we just work hard enough, we can be rich too.
But that's not how capitalism really works. The division of people into working and ruling classes, and the abstraction of value means that the more money you have, the more you can extract from the workers who actually produce the value. This reality is largely ignored, or suppressed, or denied.
So you have these massive numbers of people who were told capitalism will let them be "successful", ie financially secure and...it doesn't. There's only one grocery store in town so you buy what's available. There's no bus system so you buy a car and be in debt however long it takes. The so-called "free market" is dominated by actors who can afford to purchase their competition.
Capitalism works as intended by the elite who do more to uphold it than anyone else: they get more and more money. The nominal goal of prosperity and growth for all is never realized, and this is framed as individual failures rather than the effect of the system itself. "Just work harder and your boss will give you a raise!"
Recently, a (reputable) polling firm called me. It was about a survey on future prospects. One of the questions asked what I considered to be the most pressing problems people are currently facing. My answer was: billionaires, the ongoing centralization of the internet, and climate change.
Perhaps not the most eloquent answer, since all of these issues actually stem from the same root cause—namely, run-amok cutthroat capitalism—but off the top of my head, I couldn’t think of anything better.
Seriously. AI talks like this because this is how effective communicators talk. The fact that people are getting turned off by this way of communicating and seeking out worse writing is concerning, and yet another way that AI is contributing to the dumbing down of society.
My CTO and I had a fun convo at 7am about em dashes before a big client preso. We all know we all do it. Why do we care at this point? It's just being transparent.
I don't use AI at all, but I refuse to change my writing style just to avoid the appearance of AI use. After all, AI just copies human writers, and if it becomes the norm to write in a style that is distinct from typical AI output, then AI output will just change to the new style and we'll be back at square one.
I don't think it's great writing. To me, regardless of AI involvement, it sounds like it's trying hard to be punchy. Big ideas, big impact! But the lack of structural variation and generic vocabulary make it bland, and bland writing doesn't tickle one's imagination or stick in one's memory.
It's not necessarily great writing, but this style is an effective communication mode. There's a reason that AI uses it, and it's because it works. 🤷♂️
Yall bitch about Ai slop and you can’t even see it when it’s served in front of you by an ex drug addict. Lol and I don’t mind Hunter, but he doesn’t speak like this, the cadence is clearly AI, and the writing fucking sucks it just sounds profound to minds as deep as a puddle. Not to mention, who gives a fuck what he has to say?
I hate AI slop as much as the next person, but some people become so obsessed with finding and pointing out that something is AI that everything starts to look like AI. They also tend to use it to dismiss the messaging, as you are doing. In this case, we'll never know if this is AI or not, and it really doesn't matter, because Hunter is correct, and he's using his platform to point out a systemic issue that needs to change.
Anyone who's taken a tech writing course - it's not on writing for techies, it's the technical bits of writing - will use that all the time. Ya frame the assumption and show the reality.
The "not A but Z" thing and variations thereof was pretty common before LLMs. The noticeable thing about their usage of it is they're trying to use language meant to take the reader from something they might genuinely be confused about to a surprising conclusion, and using it in a way that's entirely banal. It relies on distance between A and Z, and genuine possibly of either. Humans tend to have way better intuition about what is surprising to other humans, and don't make insane mistakes like LLMs do.
Rather than have "Z" be self-evidently interesting, the LLM need to tell us that it's not "A". Except no one thought anything was "A" in the first place, and the "Z" is barely a "B" let alone a "Z".
This also goes for couplings of three short descriptors ("Simple. Intuitive. Seamless.") and summations ("the important part to realise is:"), bullet point lists, etc. All techniques to say: here's the important part, here's the bit you should listen to.
This all being said: the tweet smells like ai to me. Wtf does he mean by sword
We are seriously about 18 months away from people thinking punctuation and complete sentences are AI because they have literally never read anything not posted on Twitter or Facebook.
Bro thinks he's on LinkedIn. Wtf man you don't even have to work, like ever. Just shut up and go live on a beach somewhere. Fuck. Even when they say things I agree with it's disgusting
Personally, i rather have them say things i agree with than living on a beach somewhere staying quiet about everything. Not saying i want him in control of anything, but the more people echo things i agree with the more likely they will materialize some day.
He's saying some nice words, but I don't have the confidence that Hunter would actually deliver on those words. I can see the democratic party deceptively changing their messaging to be anti-establishment while still carrying out the will of the establishment through their actions. In fact, they already did that reluctantly when Barack "Hope and Change" Obama jumped onto the scene and carried the zeitgeist. He said many nice things that meshed well with the popular sentiment, but in the end just largely did what the establishment wanted, counter to that popular sentiment. Then the party completely shut down that rhetoric when they doubled down on Hillary "Her Turn" Clinton after. It shows just how stubborn the party is in wanting to keep the status quo that they couldn't even keep the messaging of hope and change going.
The most concerning part is when he said that people want to be led. This is the kind of thinking that makes politicians feel justified in overriding what people want. Politicians are civil servants, not leaders, they should be carrying out the will of the people. This tells me he may listen to what people want, but ultimately he will make decisions based on what he'd prefer as "leader".
Eh, that's fair. I'd be surprised if he can pull it off though.
Like, look, you give me a dyed-in-the-wool socialist who fully believes in good things, I genuinely think his past would be a non-issue. Like, if people can rally behind Graham Planter, people could rally behind Hunter Biden, comparing pasts only. And that's only if Hunter Biden had like fucking immaculate beliefs... Which he doesn't. As it stands, he loves and supports his dad's legacy too much to attract any leftists (let alone some of the odious beliefs he holds in line with his father), and is actually too scandalous for his establishment roots. His saving grace is, being the black sheep of his family, I doubt he's had access to enough yes-men who would convince him otherwise? Idk.
My money is on, he sees how he rides his dad's name, he sees how that name doesn't mean shit anymore to anyone with power, and is looking to be a left-ish influencer. This is all my opinion anyways.
He said "I'm not running for office. But if I were[...]". If he can entertain what-ifs then so can I, especially when it's the what-if he brought up himself and I'm speaking directly about that what-if.
The Democratic Party leadership is corrupt and those individuals are more interested in maintaining their own proximity to wealth and power than “winning” or providing any material benefit or protection for their supposed constituents. They don’t lose because they’re incompetent or tone deaf, they lose because they want to.
*or rather, they lose because it’s preferable to the left gaining power and taxing the rich, ending the private co-opting of the commons, and expanding the welfare state.
He was absolutely correct until that last fucking sentence. Nobody wants to be led, and these people aren’t leaders. They are executives, their job is to execute the will of the people, and that is what we want.
Edit: are people downvoting me because they want to be led??? I am confused.
Yes, yes. No progressive can ever win anywhere until they do. And other self-serving lies from the "oops all genocide" wing of the party. Sit down and watch your worst nightmare of the world changing for the better.
I’m not so sure. The man is now clean, free from prison, watching hate rain down on his family, so wanting to spout off on social media to make some of the assholes radiate more stench as such sounds about right.
Let the man vent. It’s entertaining and maybe someone in the party will listen. Probably not, but it can’t hurt.
Pithy observations are characteristic of recovered addicts. (Source: spent several years working with them.)
I'm not really sure what his play is lately, but I'm woth the other guy. No way in hell he's planning to run for anything. Not if he buys his own logic here.
Wouldn't it be amazing just to watch the aneurysms erupt among the GOP, though? Even if he entered with no intention of even winning the nomination, just announcing that he was considering it would create so many exploding heads on the right that it would be fantastic.
I feel like you're sealioning. But I'll go along one last time:
It doesn't matter whether what he says is true or not. What matters is what he'll do if he becomes popular, runs for office and gets elected, because if he says what people want to hear to get elected but doesn't believe in what he says, the minute he's elected, he'll stab the people who voted for him in the back.
Sealioning is a popular tactic for people arguing in bad faith. I don't think I'm arguing in bad faith, I am just trying to point out the flaw in your reasoning.
You are saying that Biden's affirmations have no value because they might be a way for him to gain popularity. First, is this any different from anyone emitting an opinion online? You could say that Mamdani, before he became the mayor of NYC, had the same motivation. In many cases, it's a good thing for someone with good ideas to gain popularity. So this means that you have to evaluate the ideas before judging the person.
Also, it's hard to guess someone's intentions. For example, I don't know what your intentions are, should I presume they are bad and automatically reject your opinions?
Finally, there is a lot of assumptions in your reply. Nobody knows if Biden will run for office, how he will act if he does, or whether he'll stab his constituents in the back.
What you are doing is called ad hominem and it's a logical fallacy.
Hey, we need an archived link to this post. Anyone can help, everyone has an hour to post it. Rule 6.
https://xcancel.com/HunterBiden/status/2069797401078939851#m
You could've DMed me.
Actually seems like a really cool practice to allow anyone to pickup the ball on correction in case OP wasn't online.
Especially with an hour time limit. I've come back to replies from 3, 4, 5 hours ago and I'm on here pretty regularly.
I feel dumber after reading this.
Turns out the establishment dems were the real conservatives all along. Imagine that. 9_9
I mean, from the outside looking in the USA has a conservative party and a fascist party. What America says is left wing politics the rest of the world calls centrist.
exactly. The Overton window is shifting back to normalcy, but the "centrists" still want to call themselves "liberals" because they have morally normal views on the wedge isssues.
!aidetector
No, we don't want to be fucking led, we are not sheep.
We want our elected officials to do the job they were elected to do, a job they all keep promising to do, a job for which the position exists to do, to work for the interests of the people. Elected officials are public servants, not leaders and should be following the will of the people, not telling the people what that will should be.
Mamdani's policies aren't him leading, it's him serving, serving the interests of the people and doing what we have wanted politicians to be doing this entire time. That you confuse serving, with leading, is a weird fucking rich kid perception of what being an elected official is and it's exactly why rich ppl shouldn't hold office.
Leadership isn't herding or commanding or necessary even guiding. It certainly doesn't need to be rooted in authority. Leadership can be inspiration, knowledge, observation, deference and delegation. It can mean being a role model or a teacher. I'd argue that the people who are the most effective leaders are the ones who enable others first, and lead by example. Barking orders has awful return on investment compared to building people up.
This dude leaderships. That coulda been right outta my army leadership course, which was surprisingly less about barking orders and more about fulfilling requirements and enabling awesome.
🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮
I bet if he said PLA book instead you’d be ok with it, right?
Does China not torture middle eastern people enough for you? You think it’s cute, it’s disgusting
No dummy, we don't want military leaders for politicians.
They are, if the primary was for lower house seats, representatives. Their job (in theory) is to represent the collective wants and needs of their constituents to congress and vote or introduce bills accordingly. Unfortunately in most Western democracies this little fact seems to get forgotten by those who are elected and party politics tends to take over.
Unless you are going out there and campaigning or operationally actually doing some-fucking-thing; you absolutely do want someone to lead and fulfill your desires. If you personally are not making it happen then you want someone else to take the lead on it.
You are allowed to have a belligerent sense of independence; just don't fool yourself.
If I pay a mechanic to fix my car, that ain't them leading. If I hire a politician to enact my will, that isn't them leading. You don't have to be the one personally doing the job.
I do not in fact want to be lead.
Do you take charge in effecting political/societal change for yourself (and your community)?
Or do you disagree with the other guy's requirements for what constitutes someone who does not want to be led?
You kinda just said "no."
'Take charge'. Explain what you mean by this.
I was going to bring in something I saw in a different thread but then I noticed you were already there.
You seem convinced that "leaders" are necessarily authoritarian. I do not believe that, so there's not going to be much point to this.
👍
What a fucking baby back bitch
7 is the one a lot of people on the left will miss is targeted at them. Cynicism is the path to defeat, pragmatism is the path to actual change, and it almost always routes through the status quo, not around it. Mamdani didn't sit around bitching about the DNC, nor did he try to run as a third party. He met voters where where they are, and in NYC that's the Democratic party. Now he looks like a king maker. This took him barely a year, during which time showed that the establishment's power to enforce preferences is actually far more limited than many believe.
I can smell the LLM a mile away.
It's not the words, it's the structure.
It's not thing A, it's thing B.
Thing C is nothing. Thing D is everything.
Big list generated from the prompt "establishment democrats are bullshit and NYC mayor proves it!!!"
Incredible how "its not x its y" is being weaponized against critics of the establishment. Like, I really couldn't give a shit about Hunter Biden, he's a joke. Also fuck AI, I wouldn't defend it.
But what you're describing is a teaching method. Just because it gets aped by ai doesn't mean all comparisons are AI. Paulo Friere uses it heavily in his pedagogical method. It was also the name of a book series on teaching methods.. Both were written years, even decades, before the invention of generative text.
Its a basic way of explaining complicated concepts, where you not only have to describe what something is, but what it isn't. You are using a negating method by saying that the text of this tweet is actually not worth considering, because it was generated by AI. Its rhetorical sophistry, presented without evidence, to create confusion and cheapen people's ability to explain or understand complicated concepts, and criticize our own reality.
I dont agree with all of his points, but your argument is cheap and socially toxic.
Absolutely. You're right to call me out on that. It's not helpful, it's socially toxic. Also, and this is where truth combines with facts to create understanding &emdash; Hunter used Claude to write that post.
Well in the interest of good faith, this is the most coherent thing ive ever seen from Hunter, so I think either had AI write it or some wonk wrote it for him
I was listening to The Idiot Bastard Son by Zappa and the Mothers when reading the post. Pretty fun timing for ai slop from a subject in the song. Give it some years and we might see a push for him in gov
I don't want to be led. I want you to do the will of the fucking people, and not the will of the dollar.
Yeah, that was the line that got to me too.
People want to be followed. Maybe there are times when the politician sees the future before the people and needs to lead. But, right now it seems like both major US political parties are stuck in the past.
What Mandami is doing is listening, not leading. That's why he's popular. He has some ideas, like city-run grocery stores. They're probably good ideas. However, what's making him really popular is doing things like making sure the streets were cleared after the snowstorms and filling potholes. That's not leadership. That's simply listening to the voters and fixing the priority issues.
AI writing.
“Don’t fear the base, court it…”
Take a lesson from the Republicans.
Edit: current Democrat “base” is their corporate donors. So I have to qualify my statement with the idea that a social liberal/progressive will be courting the citizens, not Citizens United.
Please stop boosting this ai slop by a genocide supporting dude. Hate this recent boosting of every post of Hunter Biden's.
Seriously why are we reposting anything from hunter biden. Im sure theres a number of more relevant and proper progressives with better insight and analysis of the elections .
Hunter is gonna run. Maybe not in 28, but he will run
And also: capitalism is failing the majority of people by continuing to funnel wealth to those who already have money. Voters are offered a choice between two options, neither of which actually want to solve this, because both major parties are controlled by wealthy corporate donors. The two-party system prevents any third party, no matter their platform, from having any chance at election.
Democratic socialist candidates got elected in NY because Mamdani is demonstrably helping people in actual, tangible ways. The most famous example is fixing potholes. This is a breath of fresh air for voter and is the same "sewer socialism" strategy used in the first half of the 1900s in wisconsin, which focused on pragmatically improving life for the general public...famously by improving the sewer system.
Capitalism isn't failing. It's succeeding; doing exactly what it's always done.
"Liberal democracy" is failing, because it is an oxymoron. The concept of democracy being compatible with an economic system where every org is a plutocracy/oligarchy with enormous wealth (power) inequality, is a mass-delusional mental illness. It was never going to work on any meaningful timeline.
"Capitalism failing a majority" isn't "capitalism is failing".
The former statement is always true, because capitalism serves the winners which will always be a minority or move to become a minority if it isn't (how it got in that state is anyone's guess). The question is only how much it's failing the majority. The two's interests can align for a time, but the needs and wants of one are almost always in direct conflict with the other's. The failures currently are massive, thus why running on helping people and actually doing the job of government (its role in a so-called "mixed-economy") is working better than anti-socialist/communist rhetoric to combat it.
Soundbites are good, but so is replying to what the other person said(mostly so we don't put words in other people's mouths)
Yeah, that was some ambiguous wording on my part. To elaborate: Americans are told from birth that capitalism is this wonderful system that gives us freedom of choice, and that the free market causes the best products and the most well-run companies to prosper. This belief system is reflected in prosperity gospel, which is the same ideology but coated in a layer of religion. We americans are told that if we just work hard enough, we can be rich too.
But that's not how capitalism really works. The division of people into working and ruling classes, and the abstraction of value means that the more money you have, the more you can extract from the workers who actually produce the value. This reality is largely ignored, or suppressed, or denied.
So you have these massive numbers of people who were told capitalism will let them be "successful", ie financially secure and...it doesn't. There's only one grocery store in town so you buy what's available. There's no bus system so you buy a car and be in debt however long it takes. The so-called "free market" is dominated by actors who can afford to purchase their competition.
Capitalism works as intended by the elite who do more to uphold it than anyone else: they get more and more money. The nominal goal of prosperity and growth for all is never realized, and this is framed as individual failures rather than the effect of the system itself. "Just work harder and your boss will give you a raise!"
Recently, a (reputable) polling firm called me. It was about a survey on future prospects. One of the questions asked what I considered to be the most pressing problems people are currently facing. My answer was: billionaires, the ongoing centralization of the internet, and climate change.
Perhaps not the most eloquent answer, since all of these issues actually stem from the same root cause—namely, run-amok cutthroat capitalism—but off the top of my head, I couldn’t think of anything better.
Biden 28: Let him take a crack at it.
Biden 28: Not perfect, but also, he doesn't rape kids.
Biden 28: Because the entire country needs an intervention.
... see, you just lean in to the idea that we live in clown world.
Then, you have a clown fight.
HunterGPT
I am no Hunter apologist by any means, but this doesn't look like an LLM wrote it to me.
Not saying Hunter himself wrote it either; just doesn't look like a machine.
"The lesson under the lesson:" is a very LLM closing statement.
I mean the AIs copied it from somewhere
Seriously. AI talks like this because this is how effective communicators talk. The fact that people are getting turned off by this way of communicating and seeking out worse writing is concerning, and yet another way that AI is contributing to the dumbing down of society.
My CTO and I had a fun convo at 7am about em dashes before a big client preso. We all know we all do it. Why do we care at this point? It's just being transparent.
I don't use AI at all, but I refuse to change my writing style just to avoid the appearance of AI use. After all, AI just copies human writers, and if it becomes the norm to write in a style that is distinct from typical AI output, then AI output will just change to the new style and we'll be back at square one.
I'm keeping my fucking god-damned em dash
It's genuinely making me want to make mistakes just to seem human
YouTube videos... It's getting harder. If they don't make mistakes, I can't tell anymore.
I don't think it's great writing. To me, regardless of AI involvement, it sounds like it's trying hard to be punchy. Big ideas, big impact! But the lack of structural variation and generic vocabulary make it bland, and bland writing doesn't tickle one's imagination or stick in one's memory.
Bland can have an impact. The man turned to hookers and blow instead of dusty libraries, cut him a break.
It's not necessarily great writing, but this style is an effective communication mode. There's a reason that AI uses it, and it's because it works. 🤷♂️
Yall bitch about Ai slop and you can’t even see it when it’s served in front of you by an ex drug addict. Lol and I don’t mind Hunter, but he doesn’t speak like this, the cadence is clearly AI, and the writing fucking sucks it just sounds profound to minds as deep as a puddle. Not to mention, who gives a fuck what he has to say?
I hate AI slop as much as the next person, but some people become so obsessed with finding and pointing out that something is AI that everything starts to look like AI. They also tend to use it to dismiss the messaging, as you are doing. In this case, we'll never know if this is AI or not, and it really doesn't matter, because Hunter is correct, and he's using his platform to point out a systemic issue that needs to change.
And the multiple "It's not [x], it's [y]"
"sword | question mark"
"strategy | empty room"
Now you're just quoting redditors.
An LLM probably didn't write it but it reads so painfully like the LLM dialect I cringed the entire time even though I agreed.
It sounds a lot like Claude to me.
Sucks that we can't give credit to people who could just have good writing skills.
It’s not good writing. That’s part of it. “They aren’t a sword, they are a question mark.” That’s just bad.
It’s definitely AI.
He did the "It's not X, it's Y" thing twice in a single tweet. Lol
It's a common rhetorical device, especially for politicians. I don't think it's a smoking gun for LLM-ness at all.
Anyone who's taken a tech writing course - it's not on writing for techies, it's the technical bits of writing - will use that all the time. Ya frame the assumption and show the reality.
The "not A but Z" thing and variations thereof was pretty common before LLMs. The noticeable thing about their usage of it is they're trying to use language meant to take the reader from something they might genuinely be confused about to a surprising conclusion, and using it in a way that's entirely banal. It relies on distance between A and Z, and genuine possibly of either. Humans tend to have way better intuition about what is surprising to other humans, and don't make insane mistakes like LLMs do.
Rather than have "Z" be self-evidently interesting, the LLM need to tell us that it's not "A". Except no one thought anything was "A" in the first place, and the "Z" is barely a "B" let alone a "Z".
This also goes for couplings of three short descriptors ("Simple. Intuitive. Seamless.") and summations ("the important part to realise is:"), bullet point lists, etc. All techniques to say: here's the important part, here's the bit you should listen to.
This all being said: the tweet smells like ai to me. Wtf does he mean by sword
We are seriously about 18 months away from people thinking punctuation and complete sentences are AI because they have literally never read anything not posted on Twitter or Facebook.
And in 18 years?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py37IFuKxYw
He didn't say Middle EAST. He said the Middle, as in the middle of the field or in the middle on issues.
Wow holy shit my eyes fully read a word that wasn't there lmfao
Good on you for admitting it instead of doubling down!
happens to the best of us
Indeed, it's very common for this to happen to anyone.
Bro thinks he's on LinkedIn. Wtf man you don't even have to work, like ever. Just shut up and go live on a beach somewhere. Fuck. Even when they say things I agree with it's disgusting
Personally, i rather have them say things i agree with than living on a beach somewhere staying quiet about everything. Not saying i want him in control of anything, but the more people echo things i agree with the more likely they will materialize some day.
If he promises to kill every past president I'll support him.
He's saying some nice words, but I don't have the confidence that Hunter would actually deliver on those words. I can see the democratic party deceptively changing their messaging to be anti-establishment while still carrying out the will of the establishment through their actions. In fact, they already did that reluctantly when Barack "Hope and Change" Obama jumped onto the scene and carried the zeitgeist. He said many nice things that meshed well with the popular sentiment, but in the end just largely did what the establishment wanted, counter to that popular sentiment. Then the party completely shut down that rhetoric when they doubled down on Hillary "Her Turn" Clinton after. It shows just how stubborn the party is in wanting to keep the status quo that they couldn't even keep the messaging of hope and change going.
The most concerning part is when he said that people want to be led. This is the kind of thinking that makes politicians feel justified in overriding what people want. Politicians are civil servants, not leaders, they should be carrying out the will of the people. This tells me he may listen to what people want, but ultimately he will make decisions based on what he'd prefer as "leader".
I mean, Hunter isn't a politician. He's not trying to deliver in any words. He's just speaking.
He specifically states he's not running, and just what hed take from it. And id say he's got his finger on the pulse here
He's doing a huge PR blitz lately, he's angling for something and political office is the most obvious reason. Even if he's just testing the waters.
Eh, that's fair. I'd be surprised if he can pull it off though.
Like, look, you give me a dyed-in-the-wool socialist who fully believes in good things, I genuinely think his past would be a non-issue. Like, if people can rally behind Graham Planter, people could rally behind Hunter Biden, comparing pasts only. And that's only if Hunter Biden had like fucking immaculate beliefs... Which he doesn't. As it stands, he loves and supports his dad's legacy too much to attract any leftists (let alone some of the odious beliefs he holds in line with his father), and is actually too scandalous for his establishment roots. His saving grace is, being the black sheep of his family, I doubt he's had access to enough yes-men who would convince him otherwise? Idk.
My money is on, he sees how he rides his dad's name, he sees how that name doesn't mean shit anymore to anyone with power, and is looking to be a left-ish influencer. This is all my opinion anyways.
Neither was Joe.
He said "I'm not running for office. But if I were[...]". If he can entertain what-ifs then so can I, especially when it's the what-if he brought up himself and I'm speaking directly about that what-if.
Yeah the non political guy who is the son of Genocide Joe. Okay dude.
What happened in NY yesterday?
Progressive Mandami backed candidates swept the standard dems.
Yeah but he has a laptop /s
Don't forget his massive hog, allegedly
Allegedly? The picture is in the congressional record.
The Democratic Party leadership is corrupt and those individuals are more interested in maintaining their own proximity to wealth and power than “winning” or providing any material benefit or protection for their supposed constituents. They don’t lose because they’re incompetent or tone deaf, they lose because they want to.
*or rather, they lose because it’s preferable to the left gaining power and taxing the rich, ending the private co-opting of the commons, and expanding the welfare state.
This man is CORRUPT and holds NO Valuable Opinion to the Democratic Party!
-The Democratic Party that ELECTED His Father!
He has a tremendous hog, though. It's a matter of public record.
Should've been spitting the truth from behind the bars, but president daddy wrote unconditional pardon.
Fuck Hunter Biden. Anyone championing this guy is a fucking moron.
He definitely plans to run for office
He was absolutely correct until that last fucking sentence. Nobody wants to be led, and these people aren’t leaders. They are executives, their job is to execute the will of the people, and that is what we want.
Edit: are people downvoting me because they want to be led??? I am confused.
Some people want to be told what to do all the time. Most of those people are magats, but not all of them.
Let's listen to the corrupt Burisma scammer junkie
AI or not, it's pretty correct . . . for New York
Yes, yes. No progressive can ever win anywhere until they do. And other self-serving lies from the "oops all genocide" wing of the party. Sit down and watch your worst nightmare of the world changing for the better.
Yeah right... If that guy isn't paving the path to run for office at some point in the future, I'm the king of England.
Well, excuse me, your Highness, but I’m pretty sure that even Hunter Biden knows better than to try running for office. I doubt he has the interest.
Yeah, what next. If someone like Hunter Biden could get elected, so could Donald Trump.
I'd be willing to take that bet
I’m not so sure. The man is now clean, free from prison, watching hate rain down on his family, so wanting to spout off on social media to make some of the assholes radiate more stench as such sounds about right.
Let the man vent. It’s entertaining and maybe someone in the party will listen. Probably not, but it can’t hurt.
Pithy observations are characteristic of recovered addicts. (Source: spent several years working with them.)
I'm not really sure what his play is lately, but I'm woth the other guy. No way in hell he's planning to run for anything. Not if he buys his own logic here.
Lol, he's not interested. And if he was, this is not how you start a campaign.
Wouldn't it be amazing just to watch the aneurysms erupt among the GOP, though? Even if he entered with no intention of even winning the nomination, just announcing that he was considering it would create so many exploding heads on the right that it would be fantastic.
I don't think he is, but even if he was, how does this change the value of what he's saying?
Yes, because then you can't tell whether he says stuff to gain popularity or because he truly believes in what he says.
Let's say it helped him gain popularity; does it make the situation he is describing less true?
I feel like you're sealioning. But I'll go along one last time:
It doesn't matter whether what he says is true or not. What matters is what he'll do if he becomes popular, runs for office and gets elected, because if he says what people want to hear to get elected but doesn't believe in what he says, the minute he's elected, he'll stab the people who voted for him in the back.
Sealioning is a popular tactic for people arguing in bad faith. I don't think I'm arguing in bad faith, I am just trying to point out the flaw in your reasoning.
You are saying that Biden's affirmations have no value because they might be a way for him to gain popularity. First, is this any different from anyone emitting an opinion online? You could say that Mamdani, before he became the mayor of NYC, had the same motivation. In many cases, it's a good thing for someone with good ideas to gain popularity. So this means that you have to evaluate the ideas before judging the person.
Also, it's hard to guess someone's intentions. For example, I don't know what your intentions are, should I presume they are bad and automatically reject your opinions?
Finally, there is a lot of assumptions in your reply. Nobody knows if Biden will run for office, how he will act if he does, or whether he'll stab his constituents in the back.
What you are doing is called ad hominem and it's a logical fallacy.