A lot of it is hedging and using lots words to avoid saying something that isn't true. That way, it looks a lot like text that contains meaningful information, even though it doesn't. The speaker can pass the scrutiny of an informed audience, because they are able to substitute their knowledge into the words, as if by pareidolia. It's the sort of 'diplomatic' language you see from politicians, lawyers, students writing essays, and any other moderately intelligent person who is put in a position where they will face consequences for not answering. Behind all the fluff, there is a very loud voice yelling "I DON'T KNOW."
Also, the 'before' segment didn't contain any mention of custard tarts, football, crowded trams, mixed feelings, etc. The original had a very positive travel agency type of tone, which was replaced with a lot of very odd sounding, imperative phrases that sound like engineering-speak. ('earn the fuss' 'build trips around pastry') I'm not convinced that this thing is actually meeting its design goal of not hallucinating shit.
Did some further reading, and it seems likely that the shortages were at least partially created by a boom in demand and crackdown on counterfeit ivermectin products. It's hard for me to see this as a partisan issue when everyone involved was just doing the best they could under fog-of-war conditions.
I disagree, but I would also have a similar reaction if it turned out that toilet-paper supply chain issues left over from the pandemic were going to affect our ability to manage screwworms, and that particular overreaction was non-partisan.
If I had to characterize it, most minimally-prompted LLM prose has two issues:
- the writing always feels self-important. I would feel a lot more receptive if I perceived that the writer came from a place of humility
- like you pointed out, overuse of writing techniques that work best if used sparingly. Sentence fragments can be effective for emphasizing a point, but if you use it in every. Single. paragraph, the effect is gone. It’s very amateurish.
>Sarcasm happens when the observed irony does not extend to the speaker.
This seems... dead wrong. In the examples in the article, both comic frames function as sarcasm, because everyone involved has no illusion that anyone is going to die if they don't see the film. The irony is entirely in the speaker's statement, which everyone knows to be false, including them. People treat 'ironic insults' as sarcasm, but this only works amongst good friends who have the shared context necessary to understand the falsity of the insult. But, then socially incompetent see this and attempt it, and fail to achieve the sarcastic humour. Which is probably why people conflate sarcasm with... failed sarcasm, frankly.
TBH I don't agree with the idea that sarcasm is exclusively the friendly variety. It also serves the role of being patronizing, scornful or even outright provocation.
Sarcasm is never friendly; it's necessarily at the expense of someone else. The simplest example is where someone makes a bold claim and someone else says 'sure, buddy...' to express contemptuous disbelief via the weakest possible form of assent. The claimant here wants to be believed, or at least agreed with.
Irony is imho much more complex and variegated, but a simple example would be any sort of self-deprecating humor, where someone is making fun of the mismatch between their aspirations and their capacity to achieve them. Irony isn't necessarily mean, whereas sarcasm is always a little bit mean even if it's mild.
>Jockingly? Is this meant to suggest that brutal honesty is an adjacent pasttime of jocks?
Well, I'm a jock, if I may say so myself, and I do ocassionally deploy brutal honesty.
Though I was talking about sarcasm and playful busting of balls in general, not necessarily through brutal honestly. Could be sarcastic and outlandish or fan, not necessarily honest.
To be clear, I don't disagree with you, and to say otherwise wasn't my point. I do think people get confused to the point where they for some reason start labeling all sarcasm as type A or B, and the entire value of the term gets lost.
The way I see it, the non-friendly type shares a lot in common with the concept of shibboleth. Which is to say, you can absolutely make sarcastic insults to the detriment of someone else for your own, or a friend's enjoyment, by relying on shared exclusive knowledge. (In essence, holding that shared context above the other person in contempt) However, you can also just be abrasive for your own enjoyment, and that's something entirely differently. (Sadism, for example, is not inherently sarcastic) People frequently confuse the two, but without ironic context - a knowledge of false belief - it is not ironic, and therefore not sarcasm.
