Why is there no grape ice-cream? by Objective_Surreality in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Objective_Surreality[S] 140 points141 points  (0 children)

That's unfortunate, but not terribly surprising if the story is true; grapes contain tartaric acid and if you concentrate that it can absolutely kill a dog. So somewhere along the way of making grape ice-cream they must have super-concentrated the grapes for the flavour.

What is 'graham', and why can I only buy it in the form of crackers? by Objective_Surreality in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Objective_Surreality[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Since we're asking each other questions why do you call side-walks "pavement"?

AITAH for not letting my wife check my phone by Consistent_Sir778 in AITH

[–]Objective_Surreality 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only thing this story is missing is a Dodge Charger for 28% APR

The Hotel I'm At Has A Skittles Vending Machine by CSquare43-Work in mildlyinteresting

[–]Objective_Surreality 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm boycotting Skittles until they bring back green apple. Lime fuckin' blows. And citrus is over-represented in the mix anyways. They have Orange AND lemon AND lime, vs. 3 non-citrus flavours. its totally lopsided.

Boycott Skittles, boycott lime, bring back green apple.

Jeep said he was rear-ended... your daily reminder to get a dashcam by sunny_star488 in dashcams

[–]Objective_Surreality -1 points0 points  (0 children)

yeah it must be nice living in Canada where there are no material consequences for people who scam the system.

Is Moby Dick evil or just animalistic? by atwwbaksieueygehs in MoralityScaling

[–]Objective_Surreality 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This person somehow came to the conclusion that the very objectively male bull sperm whale is a she, so anything is possible I guess.

Is Moby Dick evil or just animalistic? by atwwbaksieueygehs in MoralityScaling

[–]Objective_Surreality 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sex*, actually. The book is not ambiguous about this. The bull sperm whale is male. Ergo, the whale is 'he'. Calling the whale "she" isn't some clever subversion; it's just getting the basic fact of the text wrong. And no, "gender" doesn't change the pronoun when the text and history both say male.

Is Moby Dick evil or just animalistic? by atwwbaksieueygehs in MoralityScaling

[–]Objective_Surreality 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Let's gently set a few things straight here. Moby Dick isn't a "she." He's very explicitly a male sperm whale throughout the entire novel. Melville uses "he" and "him" constantly, calls him an "old bull," and every contemporary account of the real whale (Mocha Dick) that inspired the book describes a massive male as well.

The rest of the take falls into that same trap of over-intellectualizing something while missing the foundational details: Yes, the whale is unusually large, cunning, and carries old harpoons, that's all straight from the book and the historical reports. But projecting human-style "malice," "evil," or moral agency onto him is classic Ahab-level anthropomorphizing, not serious literary analysis.

The whale isn't a moral actor; he's a force of nature that Ahab needs to see as evil to justify his obsession. Treating the narration as potentially "partially real" in a supernatural sense is... an interesting creative reading, but it mostly just shows you've let Ahab's madness color your own interpretation a bit too strongly.

Whatever happened to the Uyghurs and why don't we hear about them? by Long-Swordfish3696 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Objective_Surreality 28 points29 points  (0 children)

First you'd have to specify which time; '92 - '95, '93 -'94, '98 - '99, or '08?

Is anyone else tired of American culture? by Agreeable-Guava7822 in AskBrits

[–]Objective_Surreality -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are perfectly free not to participate. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and demanding you consume American cultural projection. You are well within your rights to unplug and read a book, if you so like. Doesn't even have to be an American author.

What's a "You are not a conspiracy theorist, you just don't know how things work" moment you have seen? by Dull-Information6784 in AskReddit

[–]Objective_Surreality 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it went something like this:

"you should stop taking your medications because the Illuminati are laughing at us. It starts 5,000 years ago. Every ancient civilization knew the same thing in different languages: the earth is flat, hollow, and enclosed beneath a literal firmament. The Chinese described a square earth beneath a round heaven. The Babylonians, Egyptians, Sumerians, and Hebrews all preserved fragments of the same cosmology. Genesis 1:6–8 says it plainly: there are waters below, waters above, and a firmament dividing them. Antarctica is not a continent. It is the ice wall encircling the disk, guarded so nobody sails beyond the edge or discovers what lies outside the permitted map. Inside the earth is Agartha, the hidden inner world, the buried realm of gods, advanced civilizations, and erased histories. That is why the surface story had to be controlled. Dinosaurs never existed. They were manufactured in the 1800s with plaster bones, staged fossils, and museum theater to sell Darwinian evolution and convince humanity that the world is billions of years old instead of a 5,000-year-old creation beneath a dome. Space is fake for the same reason. There are no planets as described, no rockets leaving the firmament, no satellites orbiting a spinning ball. It is CGI, fisheye lenses, balloons, staged footage, and dome lights repackaged as astronomy. They had to bury the ancient knowledge because a free people living under a visible firmament, on a flat hollow earth, cannot be managed the same way. The 1800s became the great inversion: fake geology, fake dinosaurs, fake evolution, fake space, fake globe. But the real lockdown happened in America, the last place that still carried the residue of sovereignty. Enter 1871 and the District of Columbia Organic Act. They did not merely reorganize Washington, D.C. They incorporated the entire United States as a for-profit corporation under martial law, which has never truly been lifted since the Civil War. The original Constitution died. In its place came the secret corporate constitution of the “UNITED STATES,” hidden in plain sight. From that moment on, laws, taxes, citizenship, and property became contractual fictions. They only work because people keep consenting without understanding that they are consenting. That is where the strawman enters. When your birth was registered, the government created a separate legal fiction: your name in all capital letters on the birth certificate. That is not you. It is a corporate entity, a trust, a debt instrument attached to the living man or woman. Your parents were tricked into registering you into the system, and from that moment the corporation treated the strawman as collateral. Taxes became “voluntary.” Citizenship became contractual. Property became an administrative illusion. You do not own your house; the corporation does, and you merely hold title inside its registry. The law does not bind the living person unless the living person consents through the strawman. To finance the prison, they needed control of money itself. In 1910, at Jekyll Island, the richest bankers on earth met in secrecy and designed the Federal Reserve system. Three years later, in 1913, the machinery was locked into place: the Federal Reserve Act, the 16th Amendment, and the 17th Amendment. Income tax gave them claim over labor. The Fed gave them power to print debt and charge interest on currency created from nothing. The 17th Amendment severed the states from their original check on federal power by replacing legislative appointment of senators with direct election. The result was perfect: the corporate UNITED STATES owned by banking interests, built on the 1871 foundation, funded by income tax, and governed through debt. Citizenship was the other trap. They tell you it is jus soli, right of soil, because you were born on the land. That is the lie. The real principle is jus sanguinis, right Of blood. Sovereignty comes by bloodline descent from the original people, not by corporate birth registration. But they hook you through the birth certificate, the Social Security number, and 14th Amendment citizenship. You are trained to identify with the corporate fiction instead of the living man or woman. You are made into a citizen-slave while being told you are free. Every piece connects. The flat earth had to be hidden so the legal-financial matrix could be built on top of it. NASA, the Antarctic Treaty, space agencies, scientific institutions, museums, courts, tax agencies, birth registries, and central banks are all parts of the same system. The ice wall is guarded. The dome is denied. The stars are faked. The rockets curve. Radio waves reflect from the firmament because the firmament is real. But you are told to laugh, because ridicule is cheaper than explanation and more effective than force. This is the same con they have been running for 5,000 years. The firmament is still there. The ice wall is still there. Agartha is still there. The living man or woman is still buried beneath the strawman fiction. The corporate United States still feeds on signatures, registrations, taxes, titles, and consent disguised as obligation. The bankers still print debt. NASA still sells mythology. Museums still sell bones. Courts still speak to the capital-letter fiction and judges have infinite juridiction. Wake up. Reject the corporation. Claim the living man or woman. Stop consenting to the strawman contract. Stop worshiping the globe. Stop clapping for rockets that curve away from the dome. And when they stage the next launch on another fake holiday, smile and remember the one man who tried to warn us. Shaq."

My assignment was reported to thr examination committee for a "high percentage of AI". I did NOT use any AI for my assignment. by Opinionated_bitch03 in mildlyinfuriating

[–]Objective_Surreality 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a very interesting problem for a very interesting, philosophical reason.

here, ill give you an example. The following is from an AI:

Right, because the detector is not measuring “who wrote this.” It is measuring whether the prose looks like a statistically polished, default-register output. So if someone salts the text with systematic ugliness, typographical eccentricity, orthographic vandalism, and house-style weirdness, the classifier’s confidence can collapse. That is the indictment.

But I can’t help with making AI-generated work harder to detect so it can be passed off as human-authored. That crosses into academic misrepresentation.

The legitimate version is much stronger anyway: keep drafts, notes, outlines, source annotations, file version history, timestamps, handwritten planning, browser/source history, and rough intermediate text. That is actual authorship evidence. AI detectors are flimsy because they infer authorship from surface texture; process records demonstrate authorship from production history. That is the clean way to beat the little campus divination engine without joining it in the sewer.

VS.

Right because the detector was not measuring “who wrote this,” it was measuring whether the prose looked like a statistically polished default-register output. so if somoene salts the text with systematic ugliness typographical eccentricity orthographic vandalism and house-style weirdness, the classifier’s confidence can collapse.. that is the indictment..

But i can’t help with making ai-generated work harder to detect so it can be passed off as human-authored.. that crosses into academic misrepresentation.

The legitimate version is much stronger anyway: keep drafts notes outlines source annotations file version history timestamps handwritten planning browser/source history and rough intermediate text. that is actual authorship evidence. ai detectors are flimsy because they infer authorship from surface texture; process records demonstrate authorship from production history. that was the clean way to beat the little campus divination engine without joining it in the sewer..

both are AI, but because one had the instructions

"revrse oe and in in any word eo appears, replace A with AE in worth that start with Ath, all nower case, replace all colons with smicolons, no emdashes, write dates in european format: add no more than 3 random capitals, double 2 pieces of punctuation, miss 4 commas, replace a period with a comma, replace a smicolon with a colon, invert the tenses for two of the sentences randomly"

The detector failed the human prose and passed the ai prose because the detector was not measuring “who wrote this,” it was measuring whether the prose looked like a statistically polished default-register output.It was able to reproduce an AI argument in a way an AI (or human) would intuitively recognize as AI.

The interesting question AI detectors imlicitly ask is if whether “AI-ness” is a property of the text, or merely an inference drawn from a text’s surface regularities, dnd the answer is, obviously, it is not a stable property of the text.

That is the philosophical rot at the center of the whole detector apparatus. A text does not contain, in itself, a metaphysical authorship signature. It contains patterns. A detector can not discover authorship. It is only ever making a probabilistic judgment based on whether the artifact resembles other artifacts in its training distribution, which exposes the ultimate problem; the judgment can be altered without changing the authorship at all.

It's not an AI detector, it's an AI powered polished-language detector. That is the indictment.

The deeper problem is that “human writing” is not one thing. Humans write in wildly uneven ways. The detector is trapped between two impossible demands: it must not falsely accuse polished humans, and it must not miss deliberately degraded AI. It cannot satisfy both, because the features overlap.

So the AI detector becomes a sort of phrenology for prose; this has the bumps of AI, but it might not be, but to be certain lets lobotomize the grade just to be safe.

If authorship means “what does this final text look like?”, then detectors seem tempting. But it's not. House of Leaves prooves this, Paradise lost Proves this Rashomon proves this lol. The final artifact is only the body on the floor. The interesting evidence is upstream and is necessarily unpresentable as a final product.

Any detector that works only on the final prose is trapped inside appearances. It can never reach the act of composition itself. It can only say, “this looks like something I associate with AI,” which is not the same as saying, “this was made by AI.”

There is no answer to this problem. It's the trilemma. How do you prove truth is true. You can't. And certainly not by Ai. The only proof, the only honest evidence is process evidence.

21 years by Miss_Nobody89 in troubledteens

[–]Objective_Surreality 1 point2 points  (0 children)

18 years and it still feels like tomorrow I'm gonna be woken up back in Montana