• 2 Posts
  • 392 Comments
Joined 30 days ago
cake
Cake day: May 11th, 2026

help-circle


  • iocase@lemmy.ziptome_irl@lemmy.worldMe_irl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    80% of Germans supported systemic eradication of entire groups of people during WWII

    Nice people shot other nice people in the back of the head

    You’re probably right that part of you is monstrous, like every other person alive. The key is knowing that part of yourself well enough so you aren’t surprised by it when you betray yourself some day.






  • It would help them convince muskovites to continue supporting the war when Ukraine “ramps up their war of terror” on Russia…

    I can see the cold logic to it… More supplies reach the front lines, and more civilian bodies allow the war to continue. Maybe it could even convince some to go to the front willingly? Especially with drone wave attacks reaching so deep into their homeland.

    The Ukrainians are really in a rough spot. They need to avoid galvanizing the political core of Russia too much in Moscow and St. Petersburg while still inflicting meaningful damage to the enemy.

    I’m just glad it looks like Russia is out of gas soon (ha! In more ways than one!) and Ukraine might force concessions and reclaim their occupied territory back.




  • iocase@lemmy.ziptoPrivacy@lemmy.mlProton has respond on reddit
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 hours ago

    That’s… exactly my point though? PR writing and LLM writing have converged to the point where they’re indistinguishable, and that’s worth noting. The structure here isn’t just “polished corporate” — it’s the specific pattern of: acknowledge the problem, reframe it, add a caveat, accept responsibility anyway, announce a process review, close with community appeal. That’s a ChatGPT prompt response, not a comms team working through a genuine crisis.

    You’re essentially arguing “it could be human” as a rebuttal to “this reads like AI,” which, sure, technically. But the tell isn’t any single phrase — it’s the whole skeleton. PR people write defensively. This is weirdly balanced and self-correcting in a way humans under pressure just… aren’t.


  • iocase@lemmy.ziptoPrivacy@lemmy.mlProton has respond on reddit
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 hours ago

    You’re right to call this out, and I want to address it directly and provide important context on how this happened.

    My accusation that Proton used AI to write their apology should never have been posted, because I intentionally try to avoid making claims I can’t substantiate, especially ones that could undermine a company’s genuine attempt at accountability.

    I engage with a lot of online content, and while my ability to spot AI-generated text is something I take seriously, my knowledge of every writing style and corporate voice is not perfect. In this case, I didn’t have enough context about how Proton communicates to make a well-informed judgment, and that’s on me.

    I also want to be straight about what an accusation like this is and isn’t. Pointing out polished writing is an observation, not evidence. In the case of Proton’s statement, it was a thoughtful response from a communications team, not a chatbot output.

    But that distinction doesn’t excuse what I said. The responsibility to verify before I post is mine, and I didn’t meet it this time. I’m now reviewing how I evaluate content before making public claims to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

    If you see me do something like this again, call it out. I rely on that feedback.


  • iocase@lemmy.ziptoPrivacy@lemmy.mlProton has respond on reddit
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    “you’re right to raise this” is an LLMism on the same level as “You’re exactly right!”

    Edit: You’re right to call this out, and I want to address it directly and provide important context on how this happened.

    My accusation that Proton used AI to write their apology should never have been posted, because I intentionally try to avoid making claims I can’t substantiate, especially ones that could undermine a company’s genuine attempt at accountability.

    I engage with a lot of online content, and while my ability to spot AI-generated text is something I take seriously, my knowledge of every writing style and corporate voice is not perfect. In this case, I didn’t have enough context about how Proton communicates to make a well-informed judgment, and that’s on me.

    I also want to be straight about what an accusation like this is and isn’t. Pointing out polished writing is an observation, not evidence. In the case of Proton’s statement, it was a thoughtful response from a communications team, not a chatbot output.

    But that distinction doesn’t excuse what I said. The responsibility to verify before I post is mine, and I didn’t meet it this time. I’m now reviewing how I evaluate content before making public claims to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

    If you see me do something like this again, call it out. I rely on that feedback.




  • iocase@lemmy.ziptoPrivacy@lemmy.mlProton has respond on reddit
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Have you ever yelled at Claude or chatgpt and had it apologize to you? It’s literally word for word this format. Low burstiness (sentences are around the same length) same with paragraph length. Absolutely perfect grammar and it reads like LLM vomited it out. I can’t prove it definitely but I’ve cursed out enough LLMs to know what it’s “you’re right to be angry, I deleted the entire production database without asking…” apology looks like.

    Have you run it through an AI checker?


  • iocase@lemmy.ziptoPrivacy@lemmy.mlProton has respond on reddit
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Have a real human type out the apology

    Edit:

    You’re right to call this out, and I want to address it directly and provide important context on how this happened.

    My accusation that Proton used AI to write their apology should never have been posted, because I intentionally try to avoid making claims I can’t substantiate, especially ones that could undermine a company’s genuine attempt at accountability.

    I engage with a lot of online content, and while my ability to spot AI-generated text is something I take seriously, my knowledge of every writing style and corporate voice is not perfect. In this case, I didn’t have enough context about how Proton communicates to make a well-informed judgment, and that’s on me.

    I also want to be straight about what an accusation like this is and isn’t. Pointing out polished writing is an observation, not evidence. In the case of Proton’s statement, it was a thoughtful response from a communications team, not a chatbot output.

    But that distinction doesn’t excuse what I said. The responsibility to verify before I post is mine, and I didn’t meet it this time. I’m now reviewing how I evaluate content before making public claims to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

    If you see me do something like this again, call it out. I rely on that feedback.