skolskoly

A lot of it is hedging and using lots words to avoid saying something that isn't true. That way, it looks a lot like text that contains meaningful information, even though it doesn't. The speaker can pass the scrutiny of an informed audience, because they are able to substitute their knowledge into the words, as if by pareidolia. It's the sort of 'diplomatic' language you see from politicians, lawyers, students writing essays, and any other moderately intelligent person who is put in a position where they will face consequences for not answering. Behind all the fluff, there is a very loud voice yelling "I DON'T KNOW."

Also, the 'before' segment didn't contain any mention of custard tarts, football, crowded trams, mixed feelings, etc. The original had a very positive travel agency type of tone, which was replaced with a lot of very odd sounding, imperative phrases that sound like engineering-speak. ('earn the fuss' 'build trips around pastry') I'm not convinced that this thing is actually meeting its design goal of not hallucinating shit.

As far as I can see, there is still one tell that was missed/left in:

>Grok showed discipline, despite its goblin-like nature.

My mind went to that immediately. This does reek of being a copycat, doesn't it?

I was weathering the excessive and confusing analogies and then I read:

>introduced a level of cognitive complexity that makes Kierkegaard read like Hemingway.

and I fucking lost it.

>Sentence fragment. Sentence fragment. Sentence fragment. That's not X, that's Y.

I can't even call this LLM smell at this point it's a stench.

To be clear, I don't disagree with you, and to say otherwise wasn't my point. I do think people get confused to the point where they for some reason start labeling all sarcasm as type A or B, and the entire value of the term gets lost.

The way I see it, the non-friendly type shares a lot in common with the concept of shibboleth. Which is to say, you can absolutely make sarcastic insults to the detriment of someone else for your own, or a friend's enjoyment, by relying on shared exclusive knowledge. (In essence, holding that shared context above the other person in contempt) However, you can also just be abrasive for your own enjoyment, and that's something entirely differently. (Sadism, for example, is not inherently sarcastic) People frequently confuse the two, but without ironic context - a knowledge of false belief - it is not ironic, and therefore not sarcasm.

>Sarcasm happens when the observed irony does not extend to the speaker.

This seems... dead wrong. In the examples in the article, both comic frames function as sarcasm, because everyone involved has no illusion that anyone is going to die if they don't see the film. The irony is entirely in the speaker's statement, which everyone knows to be false, including them. People treat 'ironic insults' as sarcasm, but this only works amongst good friends who have the shared context necessary to understand the falsity of the insult. But, then socially incompetent see this and attempt it, and fail to achieve the sarcastic humour. Which is probably why people conflate sarcasm with... failed sarcasm, frankly.

We have a word for that: Lawyers!

Fake it til you make it is good. But, better yet, we figured out you can just keep faking it until some other sucker wants to hold the bag.

On some level they deeply desire for everyone to pay attention to them at all times, and they fear being ignored and irrelevant. Someone like that will struggle to understand that others don't get the same enjoyment out of being watched.

gotta smooth it out somehow

Any live band performing a song is subject to mechanical licensing as much as a recording artist. Typically the venue pays it, just like how radio stations pay royalties. This system exists because historically, that's how music reproduction worked. You hire some musicians to play the music you want to hear. Copyright applied to the score, the lyrics, and so on. The 'mechanical' rights had to come later, because recording hadn't been invented yet!