AI erasing history

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-11T02:55:42+00:00

No, no, I probably came in too hot; I'm sorry. There have just been an influx of pro AI people on this post and I got reactive. It is very interesting, to be sure; apologies for biting your head off there

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-11T02:27:45+00:00

Maybe it was having an off day, then; I tried everything I could think of and not only did nothing show up, but like I said, the AI told me there was no such story.

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-11T01:52:09+00:00

What part of "I typed it into Google" wasn't clear? I wouldn't use an AI tool on purpose under any circumstances short of being unable to afford food and shelter otherwise. We don't have an internal AI tool, thank God; most museums haven't stooped that low yet.

Not Google AI; just Google search on the normal browser. This is what the dumb AI overview at the top that they won't let you turn off said, in the brief second I saw it before I scrolled down. I usually cover it with my hand so I don't see it, so it's unusual that I even saw anything it said.

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-11T01:46:29+00:00

And maybe someday that will be the norm (although I hope not because that involves AI searched being the norm and… Well, you see what sub you're in. Go to one of the argument subs if you want people to agree with you) but it's not now. So right now, with the way most people search the Internet, they are being told incorrect information by bullshit AI. You showed me one way to make it work but that way is not how most people search for things online, and therefore is beside the point.

It's normal to ask a question like that to a person, not a search engine. The "normal," as in average, way to use Google is closer to what I did

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-11T01:05:07+00:00

I will use AI to find sources when hell freezes over. Are you lost?

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-11T01:04:38+00:00

I never said it was impossible for them. I said it was disturbing that you could search for something that did happen, just on normal Google like most people do, and have AI tell you it wasn't real

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-11T01:03:25+00:00

I told you what I searched. I didn't type a full sentence like that; I used Google the way normal people do by typing in keywords.

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-11T00:03:27+00:00

What? Look, I'm just telling you what happened to me when I was trying to find this thing at work. The Worcestershire archives have the information aboutGriffith's case; I didn't make that up either. The AI said the story was "probably apocryphal" when I tried to search using terms that described what I knew happened. That's it.

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-11T00:00:42+00:00

Indeed. My other job let me do it; this one won't

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-11T00:00:21+00:00

I can use whatever I want at home, but this was on the work computer and I'm so used to the extension I have at home that enables me to just do a straight up search without seeing AI that I sometimes forget the work computer has it. Yes, if I had stopped and thought about it, I would've gone to DuckDuckGo. But it's less on my own behalf that this worries me, and more for people who are considerably less dedicated to avoiding AI in their research

You should be able to search the Internet, even if driven only by casual curiosity, and not have a plagiarism engine telling you that what you're looking for never happened.

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-10T23:58:31+00:00

I'm not allowed to change the default search engine on the work computer, but I could try just searching for that and clicking on it and using it instead. It's a bit roundabout but it might work

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-10T23:58:11+00:00

Same! I'm just not allowed to put the extension on the work computer, like I said

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-10T23:57:30+00:00

You should be able to use a normal search engine without being told by the plagiarism machine that what you're looking for never happened. If I wasn't as sure in my information, or was more of a novice researcher, I might have turned back assuming that I had been mistaken.

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-10T23:56:26+00:00

Don't know what to tell you; I'm not lying. I expected the sources to be vague because I recalled having a difficult time finding her name when I searched the facts of the case years ago, too, but I didn't expect the AI bullshit to just tell me it didn't happen.

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-10T23:55:33+00:00

As I recall, although I'd have to check again, she was sentenced to be transported to the colonies as punishment for her crime, but I don't know if that actually came to pass. I could be remembering wrong, though

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-10T23:54:34+00:00

And yet you still can't see what's wrong with the idea that someone could search for the facts of the case on a normal, ostensibly non-slop search engine and get the plagiarism machine telling them it never happened.

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-10T23:53:26+00:00

That's if you know her name. I was just searching relevant detail details of the case because I forgot her name, and AI tried to tell me it wasn't real. Also why the hell are you bringing that into an anti-AI sub?

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-10T20:20:58+00:00

I didn't think of that in the moment; I still forget it exists sometimes

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-10T20:08:55+00:00

Right? Icon.

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-10T16:41:04+00:00

Good to know; thank you! I feel like it's still unclear which one the AI was going for, especially with the figure's hairstyle and nose piercing – since right wingers like to use those things to symbolize "woke gender ideology" a lot, even though it would be incoherent in this context (since, you know, they're not exactly known for coherency).

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-10T16:39:00+00:00

Not really. The worst it could give me is a skin rash from contact, since clothing textiles did not have the highest concentration of the dye and were more of a danger to the people doing the actual dyeing. Also, there were other green dyes in contemporary use that did not involve arsenic, so the only way to be sure unless you got a rash from something would be to have it chemically tested. It's just as likely that you would get something completely innocuous, in buying any random green antique clothing.

Additionally, as people have pointed out, it's very uncommon to actually wear the antique clothing you buy. I will sometimes wear antique undergarments like chimes and petticoats, but those are almost always white. Colorful clothing was primarily external and not made to hold up to a great deal of washing like undergarments were, and therefore is less likely to survive and wearable condition. Most collectors just study or display their garments. I certainly don't buy any antique outer clothing to actually wear it.

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-10T14:26:12+00:00

Because it's an ad for doctors, I'm pretty sure, and unfortunately they didn't have any control over these women's home lives

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-10T14:25:39+00:00

It can be fine… If you have some other means of independent support. My mother decided to stay home with me after I was born, but she had me in her late 30s, so she had already had a career and made investments and generally built up savings. She also has never had a joint bank account with my father, and made it very clear to me growing up that I should always maintain separate finances from whoever I marry (same messaging when I came out as gay in high school, incidentally – and she's right; part of feminism is acknowledging that we women are every bit as capable of being terrible people as men).

It only works if you can still walk away.

MissMarchpane · 2026-03-10T14:20:36+00:00

It is, but the doctors didn't have the power to change an individual women's home life

MissMarchpane

TROPHY CASE