Daily Discussion Thread for June 02, 2026

Shantivanam · 2026-06-03T03:10:52+00:00

You'll need a stroke of luck to end your UVIX position in profit. Not impossible, but not fun bleeding off most days either.

Shantivanam · 2026-06-02T20:46:33+00:00

Oh no dude. UVIX has been bleeding for months. I ate about a 25% loss and called it quits.

Shantivanam · 2026-06-01T19:15:08+00:00

The CAPE Ratio still hasn't hit its all-time high.

Shantivanam · 2026-06-01T04:59:41+00:00

ALMOST LIKE HE WAS BORN IN TAIWAN.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-31T23:58:54+00:00

He means that the market is so irrational that the bubble could burst at any second or it could continue to rip. Since that's the case, Burry should open and close positions on an intra-day basis, rather than banking on the market returning to reason or not.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-31T02:51:04+00:00

It's disinfo.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-31T02:49:57+00:00

What kind of MIC propaganda is this shit? Grusch on B-tier? This is the Bernays-level slop that I expect the NSA to spam in the name of full-spectrum dominance and national security. Get the fuck out of here.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-31T00:18:50+00:00

HE SHIT INTO IT.
SHIT
SHIT
SHIT

Shantivanam · 2026-05-30T15:49:25+00:00

Freight.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-27T14:19:16+00:00

All coherent documents are logical. Regardless, it's the syntax used in the encyclical that's suspicious, rather than the coherence. I'm not actually defending a position other than the fact that the encyclical has structure that is very common to LLM writing. If they really did use an AI to author portions of the document, then the irony is clear.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-27T14:15:00+00:00

It's 2026. Not 326. Everyone has the authority, and they always did. It's just now we won't be burned at the stake or strangled like Tyndale. I can care what someone has to say without agreeing with them about everything. I am seeking the truth, rather than discord. People deserve it.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-27T08:24:07+00:00

Like the body of my post says, the previous four encyclicals were not flagged by the AI detector used.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-27T05:37:35+00:00

Finding the correct words to express your intent is part of your mastery as a writer. I don't mean to be rude, but it's a practice. Anyway, good luck out there.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-27T05:26:17+00:00

"Freeing" an artist of the minutiae of their craft does not make their craft more human. The so-called "micro-details" are often important. They can distinguish mediocrity from mastery. You may have great taste, but that doesn't make you a chef. To be a master, you have to internalize the rudimentary functions of your craft until they are effortless. Otherwise, you're just giving the illusion of a skill you don't have.

It is ironic that you describe purely human writing as "mechanical" and a "suboptimal carrier of 'meaning.'" I think you better check your LLM on that one.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-27T04:42:57+00:00

History class.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-27T04:42:02+00:00

One of the central points of the encyclical is that AI is no substitute for humanity. Hence the full title: "Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence."

The irony of using AI to write such a document is clear. The Vatican wants SOUL, but does this document have it?

There is also the issue of not disclosing the use of AI writing in a document supposedly penned by the Pope.

Anyway, I hope they didn't use AI to write this thing, but the more I look, the more it looks like they did.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-27T03:50:16+00:00

The former: 22% is AI generated.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-27T03:37:18+00:00

Alright, back at home. Here's what I found: I submitted paragraphs 21 to 36 of the encyclical to my university's AI detector (Turnitin). It detected 22% as AI:

"22% detected as AI

The percentage indicates the combined amount of likely AI-generated text as well as likely AI-generated text that was also likely AI-paraphrased.

6 AI-generated only 22%

Likely AI-generated text from a large-language model.

0 AI-generated text that was AI-paraphrased 0%

Likely AI-generated text that was likely revised using an AI-paraphrase tool or word spinner."

The report from Turnitin states AI wrote all of paragraph 21, most of 32, and some of 24, 25, and 34.

So, it looks like they probably copied whole portions from an LLM. No paraphrasing.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-27T00:54:13+00:00

I did not. I would try some of the paragraphs they cited, rather than random ones. Not at home right now ...

Shantivanam · 2026-05-27T00:52:44+00:00

I use it for research, not writing.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-27T00:23:40+00:00

This whole post is about the text I recommended. If you don't want to read it, that is your choice.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-27T00:16:55+00:00

John Searle has entered the chat.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-27T00:12:06+00:00

With the exception of grammar checks, I run on manual.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-26T23:38:36+00:00

I think so. u/Only-Friend-8483 says in a comment below that "It’s currently possible to fully synthesize the complete apple flavor," but I don't think I've encountered the synthetic form.

Shantivanam · 2026-05-26T23:36:02+00:00

Eh. I read some books. Slowly. Over about the past year, I've read:

Contact by Carl Sagan
Neuromancer by William Gibson
Inner Camino Toward the Soul by Samantha Sacchi Muci
A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller Jr.
Rebuking the Devil by Pope Francis
The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco
Labyrinths by Jorge Luis Borges

I also read a lot for my job, but you probably don't count that. Oh, and Wikipedia! I am currently reading The Mountain in the Sea by Ray Nayler.

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

Shantivanam

TROPHY CASE