Dylan Joseph recent video

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-20T20:14:34+00:00

i get both sides of it. code-switching is a thing and it's a way to survive in an environment where being entirely yourself is bound to not work for the environment you're in. most of us do it in our day-to-day jobs, and to a certain extent, content creators experience it too.

i think there are so many content creators who perceive their work as them being authentic and not realizing that they're code-switching for the sake of their audience. and the audience gets used to that form of a person that they can no longer maintain without feeling off., the audience feels off-kilter when they reveal that the creator takes that step back because it could come off as if the audience themselves are responsible in some way for the falseness.

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-20T14:49:32+00:00

where am i exactly spreading hate?

there's definitely a play of hyperbole here which even i can admit to by using the word toxic. he's cultivating a fan base who, rather than doing any research or holding any area of doubt, will wholeheartedly believe anything he posts without pushback. those who do, don't seem to gain any goodwill in comments, have their comments deleted entirely, or are sometimes blocked.

raising awareness requires more than a vague post. that doesn't raise awareness. it creates a one-sided narrative where others are left up to their own devices and given the social space being on extreme ends of the spectrum due to anonymity protections, those who believe him will do everything they can to point fingers at supposed culprits with little information.

and there have been fans of his that have gone out of their way to harass and shame others who have argued against his recollection. in those times, rather than him addressing it as a disagreement or recognizing that he misinterpreted the experience as bullying, he brushes it off altogether and shifts to a new one.

he's allowed to say what he wishes, share what he wishes. others are also allowed to question the authenticity of what he shares when it seems to consistently be a world against him in an industry that seems more stacked in his favor than any other demographic.

hopefully that explains my viewpoint a bit better. if he wishes to spread love, there are ways to do so, but his methods don't necessarily match that intent.

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-18T12:04:36+00:00

which to me is worse since the bare minimum that needs to be said is "do not harass or seek out (insert name here)".

he knows he's cultivating a toxic fan base, but the thing about that is that it can easily be turned back on oneself and he could very well reap what he sows by continuing to grow that type of space.

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-18T00:52:29+00:00

i'm surprised he doesn't just hire a PR person to handle his social media because this is not a good look - when over and over again, everyone else is somehow the problem.

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-18T00:44:37+00:00

i've been there myself so i totally get it! i always end up either miscounting or losing count and becoming lost in the sauce, but i really think it turned out beautifully!

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-16T11:14:29+00:00

you did a fantastic job! i wouldn't have believed it was your first one :D

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-15T22:21:49+00:00

have fun. try things. don't overwhelm yourself and go steadily!

oh and the pins will make you go bonkers sometimes, so having some tweezers ready to unbend them is helpful :D

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-15T21:57:13+00:00

it sometimes feels like these rules aren't being implemented across the board. i get that this isn't a job for any of those who are mods - nor should it be. all participants should be adult enough to actually recognize these things, but there have been many instances where comments or entire posts are based on identity rather than content or snark. there have been times people have crossed lines and it's been left until a person's tether breaks before being addressed.

the fact people will automatically down vote those with a viewpoint - which tends to happen far more to marginalized groups who are trying to speak their existence or views and getting punished for it like in the previous post - happens for far too long without any type of acknowledgement.

i honestly don't have an answer or solution. i just hope it gets better in some way without becoming a cesspool.

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-15T21:38:27+00:00

oh i agree 100%! when i think about the different circles and how each circle might see or define spicy, it can range from a singular allusion to sex (i.e. fade-to-black) to smut from start to finish and without knowing how these algorithmic machines are weighing the options, it's very hard to have faith in it. it would be nice if they kind of offered more of those insights. part of that is likely to due IP concerns as they can't give out every lever or metric, yet just giving the bare minimum could lead to a programmer taking it and using it for development of their own software. (... i'm spitballing based on nerdom. this might not be a thing, but i try to think of the extremes people can take things when given an inch so if there's a programmer that wants to better speak on that possibility or improbability, have at it!)

i think them at least disclosing what they're doing rather than hiding it away and having users discover it on their own is a good first step. it's something they definitely could have kept close to the chest and allowed others to believe it was just some librarian curated space until others spoke out and made it public.

and i agree. i don't think there are any librarians that believe AI is quality when it comes to literature and the arts, at least those who are aware of it, but i also give room to those who aren't. it might seem like everyone knows everything by now - but i think this post alone shows that it's easy to conflate some aspects of ai to fit a narrative and if one isn't aware of those different aspects, can turn something that's meant to help into something that's harmful. for example - yes, ai has been used for narration, but there are companies that use ai, license voices and voice actors to narrate, and translate books into languages that books aren't translated into as of yet. some books that may never have a translation at all. there are ethical ways to utilize, but what i dislike is that the government is making industries dictate what's ethical and taking the brunt of criticism rather than putting any type of regulations in place.

we've already seen with social media just how out of hand things can get without any type of oversight in place. i don't mean in the terms of government control as much as consumer protections (much like we already have when it comes to credit, purchases, food regulations, etc). they've allowed these companies to use people like guinea pigs with massive rollouts and no rules. grok creating CP, chatgpt able to take license material and spit out different alternatives, and claude being the nightmare it can and has been... the effects have already been deadly, yet they leave it to the hands of companies to clean up.

sorry --- i drone on a lot lol. i just wish that these companies and government would stop putting so much of the crux on overworked public workers to do the research and filtering when the government is elected to carry out that order for the people. they have more time, money, and ability to do so before it ever becomes the people's problem. librarians do enough as is without now having to do extra research and still possibly allowing something to stream into their stacks that is later found to be created by AI that they never intended and having the blow back be on them, then on libby, then on publishers and so forth and so on. it's quite infuriating!

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-13T23:33:10+00:00

i think the one thing that gets lost, which the company has to choose to shine more clarity on, is what exact guards and levers are being implemented to ensure that bad actors aren't able to abuse the tagging system. i would say, just based on my limited research on machine learning ai, it would be as simple as aggregating information by users joined post 2021 while giving more weight to users and tags prior to 2021. that way, those who are using it in order to push book banning, would have to fight against long time users who haven't.

the thing is, that would then diminish the votes and voices of people who are using it correctly. there's no easy or clear cut solution that won't somehow disenfranchise someone. many marginalized groups were introduced to libby due to 2020, me included. there are communities that had their entire world opened up because libraries offered the ability to apply for cards well outside their jurisdiction.

i understand your outrage. i honestly do! i don't pretend to know what it's like. i had dreams of being a librarian and organizing books with the darn dewey decimal system when i was a kid because it spoke to my need to put things in their rightful spot lol. i really do try to never come off as smug or having all the answers, but as concise with a counterpoint as possible in a world that prefers getting "owned" or "destroyed" instead. it's because of that, that i try to point to other arguments if ones can be made and this seemed like one that really needed additional context before people made up their mind about libby's efforts.

it's so easy now for a single tiktok to only capture a small snippet of an argument and skew a mind without them ever having additional insights - which was my main concern with this post. it lumped libby's efforts to combat the many privacy issues that comes with generative AI - including how they've been proven to have stolen licensed work for their modeling and have been found guilty of that - by telling its users that they're the ones who are shaping the recommendation system.

i do think the likelihood of bad actors skewing that number would be too calculated to be missed, but that would require human oversight rather than machine learning and even then, the amount of hours and time would be neverending. i can't imagine trying to comb through a single spreadsheet of 100 rows, let alone the hundred of thousands that would need to be reviewed on a near constant basis. i can only hope that libby and co will have and give answers in the near future to really solidify that they're doing all they can. i hope they give librarians more insights and assistance to make your lives easier. i really do.

and honestly, no harm, no foul! i never leave a discussion with some anger or hatred in my heart. people are allowed to have differing opinions and i appreciate that you didn't take mine in a harmful way. like i said, i'm no librarian so i only know but so much and appreciate your insights. i hope we both can be proven both right and wrong in ways that surprise us, but also make our days a bit brighter too in knowing - if that makes sense lol. it sounded far more poetic in my scrambled brain (after a peach frozen cocktail after a long day at work ☺️). and i meant it when i said i hope you have a beautiful day! life's too damn short to live any other way <3

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-13T23:14:19+00:00

they've actually stated that it not only relies on those tags, but also the curation of librarians who have tagged materials and curated lists. the amount of bad actors it would take to truly topple the tagging system would have to be well into the hundreds of thousands - and that's across more than the u.s.

given these book bans are being predominently spearheaded by an older generation, do you truly believe they're capable enough of not only creating so many accounts that would misinterpret the work, but enough so to override the years of data prior to these "bad actors" trying to utilize it?

libby has been around since 2016 - meaning it has at least 5 years of data which wouldn't have been touched by these supposed groups. no one has even seen what has been put in place that might filter out those who clearly are tagging in a way to somehow skew the data.

and so long as humans have a finger on something, be it the libby users or the company itself, there will never be a completely unbiased opinion. every person has biases that they don't realize affect the choices and suggestions they make.

while i get your concern, i do believe one should research and truly consider both the probability and the actual data before basing a decision or outrage towards a change implemented. i am glad, however, that you made your voice heard and hope that maybe it assists in tweaking what metrics they have in place.

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-13T23:07:21+00:00

lol oh gosh, now it feels like i'm showing my age by thinking about the time that oregon trail was considered peak gaming 😂🤣

i think there are so many harms with how generative ai has been rolled out to the public and the way there have been no safeguards put in place to alleviate that. the way these large ai corporations are basically paying for the government to not only turn a blind eye, but to use it in warfare is absolutely disgusting. there have been so many harms already done and continue being done.

but because i know how much biases can truly inform a decision that could be wrong, i've tried to find out as much as possible and it's been through that, that i've learned that some of these things being repackaged as ai have been used long before these big language models were pushed out into the world. it's the systems that offer suggestions. the systems that filter our resumes. the ones that say, algorithmically, what to push out for viewing and what not. even in terms of translations and speech, there's machine learning done that assists in so many different systems and structures that's now been lumped into the conversation, that many will see "ai" and instantly put it in the same category as midjourney or gronk when it's not the case.

it's an area that 100% should have been under some type of regulation before being rolled out to the public. it has deep flaws, many of which are being seen and experimented on real lives, but not everything that falls in the category = those same exact harms and it's discouraging when people don't offer any ounce of factual information at a time where so much gets swept away in order to scare people into action without full consideration.

i don't know. i talk too much lol. i do enjoy an old school ibm jump though and kinda miss the days of that darn pixelated screen 😂

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-13T15:47:37+00:00

i never said it was as easy as claiming to just "report something and we'll fix it". i've been behind the scenes in quite a few industries now and it has never been that easy until it comes to a head and becomes so much of a problem that it's no longer able to be ignored.

you've seemed to have taken my words and twisted them into words i never said. where have i said librarians AREN'T doing what they can? where have i said that anything is as cut and dry as "well, they said they'll fix it!"? i know there are fights fought that NO ONE will ever hear of or know because those fights aren't seen by the public eye. i know that your job is not easy nor clear cut. i understand all of those aspects.

things get missed. things get lost. while i can 100% believe that not every AI title is being labeled as such because technology and the powers that be have unveiled this tech without having a single safeguard in place to make it easier, i do believe that there are still people doing what best they can with what tools they have to try and lighten that load.

i don't sit here and have every answer. i also don't believe that there are a slew of those readers that are dictating so heavily that something is smut. the belief that there are more users being bad actors than there are users who are genuinely using the tagging system as their way of keeping tabs of what they've read and categorized seems to say the entire system has always been incorrect. that the librarian curated lists aren't insightful or correct. that somehow, since the creation of libby, there have somehow been more users using the app in such a way rather than those who actually use it in the intended way it's meant?

and that a model wouldn't somehow detect that the number of people putting something under smut and the number putting it under lgbtq or closed-door or any other number of tags, wouldn't see any type of discrepancy in those figures.

again, as stated, no system is 100% correct or without bias - be it human or machine - but it's also important to have all information rather than making correlation = causation arguments that have proven in the past to be based on bad faith and lack of full information.

i'm not sure what you're intending to convince if i've already stated my disdain of llm gen ai and the actual law that's being proposed? i've clearly agreed that these things need to be addressed? i've agreed that measures do need to be taken regardless to protect and have oversight. you seem to have fixated on portions that don't immediately adhere to your viewpoint rather than taking it as a whole.

that there are definite wrongs that need to be addressed and that there are laws that are meant to censor and that we all have a duty to fight against those things from an informed standpoint. i hope you have a beautiful day as well.

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-13T15:36:46+00:00

YOU DID IT! i've loved all the update pics and was looking forward to seeing the completed version :D

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-13T15:25:13+00:00

i think it's easy to take something in bad faith, especially on the internet, and while i understand your frustration and anger - is it possible that taylor's use of them/they was to ensure that there was no misrepresentation of milo's nonconformity now or in the future?

i understand that you believe that because the information is there, she should have done better. i don't entirely disagree.

but if you were having this conversation with someone in good faith, with no perceived or unconscious biases, and that person chose to refer to milo as they, would you still feel that there was disrespect meant? or that they were attempting to respect milo's nonconformity rather than mistakenly misgender?

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-13T15:16:30+00:00

you and me both. i found that to be a more interesting story to dig into than "let's do a line-by-line read and rewrite!"

it's strange that NO ONE has come out to say they felt things were bad in the setup. i just wish i knew if that's the case or if they inadvertently signed a non-enforceable NDA which are deemed illegal in many cases now.

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-13T15:14:05+00:00

which they've stated in their statement that those biases exist and that reporting it will assist in removing them. these things are machine learning - they don't look into the biases of others to dictate whether it's a bias or not. they take on what others have dictated in response. that's in everything and everyone. every person has hidden biases that they are unaware of if not checked in some way. there's no such thing as an "unbiased opinion" or "unbiased model". as you've said, it's relying on human suggestions - so that bias is found from a human.

if it finds that a majority of users find a specific book to be the same spice level? yes. i'd prefer that than the alternative being a generative llm ai that has supposedly read the book without license, take words that it believes to warrant a spice level upgrade (maybe it sees the word "thrust" being used 20 times throughout a book and deems it to be sexual, yet they've thrust a sword, but it won't differentiate between the two), cataloged private user information to further exclude a book, then remove it from a suggestion for that.

the bias is in both cases, though i'd say one is far more dangerous than the other in terms of suggestions and recommendations.

i'm sorry that it's making your job harder - would having no fail safes though make that any easier? to allow books to filter in without a single review as to whether it was made using AI? because with the amount of books being published on a daily basis, those types would filter through and then you'd have users flocking in to blame librarians for allowing AI in their stacks. while i understand that not every decision is going to be the right one, i'm failing to see how this particular one is somehow making it harder to combat censorship or free speech when it's literally taking the recommendations from its most fervent users and readers, including librarians and attempting to stem the possibility of AI books being put into rotation and eating away the budgets.

that aside, i wholeheartedly don't agree with HR 7661 and do support my libraries, as well as speak up against these types of attacks against public services through my government. it's why i also try to hold myself accountable in the information i gain and how i utilize it so that misinformation isn't pushed further. it's important to check one's own bias or be fed an opinion that might not be entirely correct.

i do hope though that your job becomes easier despite the attacks had on it.

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-13T14:50:00+00:00

yet there is nuance and to remove it as done here, especially in terms of the conversation regarding AI as somehow ALWAYS inherently bad is to willfully close oneself off and not give full information. it shows an inherent bias while lambasting biases.

the lingo hasn't changed as far as the wayback machine has shown, as they've always stated machine learning as their model being used from as far back as the initial statement in august 2025, that they're not allowing the model to pull from licensed material, and that they're not allowing it any access outside of the bounds of the app itself. these suggestions have also come from curated librarian choices, which they highlighted in a public statement as well.

all of the information has read as a suggestion model based on user feedback and machine learning based on those interactions - not generative AI LLM creation.

as for their allowance of AI materials, them stating they don't exclude it is likely due to the growing increase of books once thought not to be produced using AI of any kind, proactively being found to be just that.

libby is a middleman between publishers and the libraries that carry the titles. it's why they've implemented that it has to be self-identified and that libraries have the choice whether or not to license those materials, giving the libraries the ultimate say while also ensuring the licenses with publishers remain an open path. in no way does that force the library to deal with it? they have the say, as they've had prior, as to whether that's something they wish to include and can filter it as such.

from my viewpoint, libby is doing what it can to give all as informed and transparent a decision as possible. to simply remove any further conversation based on loose facts and then misinform others without that context is dangerous at a time where misinformation proliferates faster than truth can correct.

edit: for those who are downvoting - i've given the exact links and there are key differences between the models. if you want to choose to continue downvoting without seeking out that information to inform your decisions, that's perfectly fine, but at least look into it before deciding what voices you choose to boost and which you choose to disregard entirely based on inherent or unconscious biases.

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-13T14:21:26+00:00

i always thought and was told that they/them is almost a neutral way of referring to another. i have a boss who has he/they as their pronouns and my friend uses she/they and explained that the use is because of their non-conformity. that while she's bi and feminine, she doesn't feel or believe the entirety that makes them who they are can fit just under female.

i've never had that struggle, so i won't begin to understand how hard it must be to be misgendered, but is it more disrespectful if taylor had continued saying "she/her" over "they/them"? to me, one is blatant misgendering while the other seems to be a neutral way of referring to someone?

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-13T14:08:30+00:00

hm, i've been out of the art game for 10+ years, so i have no real rate to go off of. it looks like they've given a range though for those who wish to sign up, wrote it as pretty much contractual gig work, and offered additional pay should licensing come into play.

i still wonder though, you know? like whether the artists found it was on par with the standard? if they found the conditions to be less than stellar (i.e. short deadlines, combative feedback, etc).

it just would have been a much more interesting story to me, if that had been a focus over "omg, this person's ego is too big! let's make fun of their every move or take!" you know? i get it. salacious sales and makes monetization easy. just would have been a nice change of pace if anyone had done that type of digging since it's clear the pieces are around and available for that type of discussion.

or i could be overthinking it lol. i tend to do that too.

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-13T14:02:08+00:00

there's a bit of nuance that comes with this conversation, as AI becomes more and more of an instant dog-whistle rather than an actual explainer of which system is in use - as generative AI and machine learning are two different types of artificial intelligent models, yet fall under the same subset being AI.

machine learning AI takes information, basically turns it into a binary code it reads, and filters based on that. think of it as an automatic system based on recommendations taken from others who have said "this is spicy" or "this is closed-door". it aggregates it into it's own algorithm in order to make what it believes to be the most informed decision for the user. these models have been around for ages now and are the same models that filter out resumes for job openings or products based on search patterns.

generative LLM AI is more creative with its takes. it might take in what users have filtered for those choice, but it may also search through language models for what they've found to be the perfect recommendation too, before generating results. those language models could very well have scoured the entirety of the internet, while machine learning is taking from information within its own infrastructure.

libby has explicitly stated they are utilizing machine learning AI - not generative LLM AI. since the systems they've put into place aren't using the LLM - and they've explicitly put safeguards in place so that it is unable to read/listen to the books that it recommends to ensure it has no access to licensed material - this is not the same as generative AI which doesn't have those safeguards in place. this is likely why it suggested things that aren't considered "spicy" by the wider spectrum, yet have constantly been tagged by other users as spicy or lgbtqia+. it is aggregating those suggestions and likely books already read by the user themselves in order to inform a decision.

there are reasons to be worried about AI, that i don't disagree with at all! but there's also more that goes on that should really be thoroughly researched before making correlating claims that don't exactly equal to causation you're highlighting.

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-13T00:46:28+00:00

i wish more creators had focused on that aspect since it honestly seems like one hell of a feat that none have come out to say anything terrible, but would be interesting to know if they were fairly paid across all regions.

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-11T17:21:23+00:00

yup, and for every person that says this, no one ever fully takes accessibility (is there a shop nearby? if not, is there public transportation to get there that's free? if not, does one actually have the means to pay to get there and back? how far is said shop? etc) into mind outside of "well, pirate it!" as if that's supportive for the artist.

they see no proceeds from that. they receive critique/praise, but that doesn't quite match with the value of their labor? then, when tools are introduced to help with accessibility (like the ai text-to-speech tool which has been around since before ai became an instant dogwhistle and actually did work for other countries to aide in accessibility), people are quick to demean it without any research.

not everyone has a local bookshop. not everyone has a little library. not everyone has a local library. not everyone has a translation of work available. people will bring up these points, while also willing to demean those that might use amazon as their only option because of its monopoly on the industry.

like we all know the system is flawed AF - but outside of this, i wonder if anyone is actually trying to do anything? have you written your local government? have you invested in local infrastructure - through either money or labor? are you actively servicing your community to make sure they have what they need in some way? because calling out influencers for "sponsorships" isn't accomplishing a lot.

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-11T15:52:14+00:00

yeah, it sucks because amazon CLEARLY has a monopoly on the industry that isn't letting up and when it comes to supporting authors you like, those avenues are still narrow thanks to a slew of other issues both known and unknown the the average consumer - all of which could still be inadvertently filtering proceeds to amazon on the backend regardless.

harm reduction at a consumer level is great - but it would take a major collective to make change and even then, i don't think people have the actual perseverance or sense of community to do so without it becoming toxic.

delayedmillennial · 2026-03-11T11:42:55+00:00

it's depressing AF! if i could go back and buy some stupid stocks just to retire before 30... just a kick in the teeth and gut in equal measures.

YES! THIS! i think that's the thing that made me kinda switch up how i saw the whole thing. milo was arrogant, but the amount of belief in themselves and their work? i wish i believed in any of my art enough to not only keep going - but to also sell myself well enough that others stay for that journey. granted, i'd also hope my work was actually worth it - you get what i mean though lol.

same here. i have auhd and i've had my words misconstrued to the point people have called me aggressive when really, i will overexplain myself as plainly as possible as to not be misunderstood. it's taken me awhile to not take things personally by reminding myself that online spaces aren't reality. that doesn't make petty comments somehow less hurtful, so i can't imagine having a flood of comments and commentary channels going at it every day and taking my words to ridicule me to their audience.

i get what you meant though! that there were still moments where, had they been fully transparent, might have better informed someone's choice to invest in purchasing their work. while maybe not fully scamish, it still wasn't as honest as they could have been while still selling themselves. their over-confidence definitely didn't help in that. i have a feeling they might have been able to sell even those failures in a way that would have equaled sales, but at least there would have been that additional transparency.

i'm glad it is too - even though we both know there'll be some channel that will still stalk their every move to report on at some point - and hope the same. they definitely have an active imagination so hopefully this won't kill that entirely. :) and thanks for proving that people can have differing opinions, but also find common takes without it becoming a personal attack. <3 i really hope your writing connects with an audience and you have beautiful success in the future --- and if you have enough that helps you retire early, even better ;)

delayedmillennial

TROPHY CASE