Personally, I'll be voting for the Greens. But I'm not going to raise any objections to people who vote for several of the better parties around (heck, when the general election comes around, the better parties really need to be hammering out an electoral pact IMHO).
4/4
So, I think this election we should vote for whichever party we'd really want to be in charge. Then we can use the results of these elections as a good guide who to vote for in the general election to keep Reform & the Tories out.
3/4
However, the rise of Reform & the Greens have completely changed all that. These two are largely the top two polling parties nationally. The previous records of who won & lost your seat are no longer good indicators of who's likely to win it now.
2/4
So, UK local elections are coming up.
Previously, I'd urge people to look up who's got the best chance in their area to keep the Tories out, and tactically vote for them.
1/4
Me: [idly looking up info on popes]
Wikipedia: This list is incomplete; you can help expand it.
Me: wut?
Wikipedia: [lifts eyebrows suggestively]
… I’ll give them “dull”! ;-)
Yeah, that's a very good point actually. Indeed, thinking back to first reading the rebuttal: The sheer number of examples he had really started to make me take him seriously.
That's spending on the climate credit card while the red lettered invoices are piling up.
14/14
...That we absolutely should not be using because of both the dodgy ethics behind them, and the environmental cost. We're in a climate crisis people! We shouldn't be building new dirty power for our toys, no matter how shiny.
13/14
LLM's & other generative AI's are IMHO impressive toys, that are finally finding the odd niche where their painful error rate isn't a deal breaking problem...
12/14
But yeah, end of the day, I think Boxo's right that it's AI written, and that it's a bit sketchy that it's monetised without any declaration of that. It's even more sketchy that it directly plagiarises other people's work (as well as the usual indirect AI plagiarism).
11/14
I also strongly disagree with Boxo about the theme of the work, and it's interpretations. It's Very Clear the post in question is making the point that you NEED to do the "grunt" work in order to have learnt the lessons the "grunt" work has to teach you.
10/14
Boxo might be amazed no-one else spotted its AI written, but frankly I'm amazed _anyone_ spotted it's AI written.
9/14
The other big tell is the plagiarism stuff, which both requires having read the originals, and having done so recently enough to still have a fresh memory of them. Neither is particularly likely to be true.
8/14
The two tells that I think do give the game away are also not going to be spotted by most people. Firstly the PhD end date. It got corrected before I saw it, and who on earth will assume or remember a random internet article is recently written? Not me.
7/14
(It's also a minor change to a quote from the worst of the original Dune books. Only a massive super fan is going to have spotted that).
6/14
The Dune quote isn't the clear cut damning evidence either. In a world where a lot of people see _any_ use of the em dash as hard proof it was written by an AI & should be ignored, replacing _any_ use of the em dash becomes an understandable human reaction.
5/14
I don't see most of the "AI tells" as being the slam dunk Boxo thinks they are. Lots of them are bad writing "that a human would never make" - yes, yes they absolutely would & do make that mistake. And worse. Heck, the clunkiest bit of writing in all 3 essays is in Boxo's 2nd essay.
4/14
And the 1st one, which is frankly full of highly, highly circumstantial evidence.
boxobarks.leaflet.pub/3misaejnoqs2k
3/14
Firstly, the blog posts making the case it was AI. I'm going to start with the 2nd one, because it does a better job of it.
boxobarks.leaflet.pub/3mj42airv3s2o
2/14
In a hilarious commentary about modern times, it strongly looks like this article on the dangers of AI.... Was written wholesale by AI.....
1/14
Boxo might be amazed no-one else spotted its AI written, but frankly I'm amazed _anyone_ spotted it's AI written.
But yeah, those are Important articles that respond the the original, so thanks for flagging them up. :-)
The other big tell is the plagiarism stuff, which both requires having read the originals, and having done so recently enough to still have a fresh memory of them. Neither is particularly likely to be true.
The two tells that I think do give the game away are also not going to be spotted by most people. Firstly the PhD end date. It got corrected before I saw it, and who on earth will assume or remember a random internet article is recently written? Not me.
It's also a minor change to a quote from the worst of the original Dune books. Only a massive super fan is going to have spotted that.
The Dune quote isn't the clear cut damning evidence either. In a world where a lot of people see _any_ use of the em dash as hard proof it was written by an AI & should be ignored, replacing any use of the em dash becomes an understandable human reaction.
In fairness, I don't see most of the "AI tells" as being the slam dunk Boxo thinks they are. Lots of them are bad writing "that a human would never make" - yes, yes they absolutely would & do make that mistake. And worse. Heck, the clunkiest bit of writing in all 3 essays is in Boxo's 2nd essay.
My problems, in perspective.
This really puts my problems into perspective.
While he could have stated it more clearly, Zack's using the current tense here. I'm not aware of any other _current_ Jewish leader of a political party.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if there's one for the myriad of tiny parties that exist. The ones that are always lumped under "Other".