That number of articles is still pretty impressive. I’d rather have fewer, high quality articles, than millions of terrible quality AI articles.

The great thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can add articles! It also wouldn’t be too difficult to “translate” regular Wikipedia articles to simple ones. You could even use AI tools to help - there are text leveler tools that will help you recognize which words lower level readers would struggle with and can help you make those changes. But this cannot be an automated process.

I’ve done graduate level course work on modifying text for “EMLs” - “emerging multilingual learners.” (“ELL” is still okay, but lots of folks in the field prefer EML because it is prioritizing the students “assets.”) I’ve made several assignments for students with reading difficulties. When I did experiment a bit with AI tools to help me with this process, I had to do a lot of fine tuning to get an acceptable product.

Tbh, you just convinced me right now that I should start adding more articles myself.

Yeah - tbh the name sucks. I hate recommending it to students, because it feels like I’m calling them dumb.

But yes 100%. Instead of doing dumb AI shit, they should be advertising what they already have.

Thats why I mentioned Simple Wikipedia.

This is far more readable that what an AI generated version of the article would make.

Those Americans with a 6th grade reading level or less are precisely the people who shouldn’t be reading AI summaries. They’ll lack the critical thinking and reading skills to catch on to garbage.

Simple Wikipedia already exists and is great.

The same could be said of to-do lists, right? But I still like having an app with a checklist, because my phone is always with me and a piece of paper is not.

When I did have periods (thank god for testosterone), I had a really difficult time keeping track of them and they were often very irregular. The app I used helped me pick up patterns and would warn me when I needed to be prepped. My dysphoria cope was pretending that they didn’t happen ever, so it was helpful to have that occasional “hey, pack some pads today” as a notification without constantly checking a calendar.

It’s best to look out for their tactics rather than individuals. Nothing stops someone from making a new account once they get known to be a KF or /pol/ troll.

78. Compare knowing and saying:

how many feet high Mont Blanc is

how the word “game” is used

how a clarinet sounds.

If you are surprised that one can know something and not be able to say it, you are perhaps thinking of a case like the first. Certainly not of one like the third.

79. Consider this example. If one says “Moses did not exist”, this may mean various things. It may mean: the Israelites did not have a single leader when they withdrew from Egypt–Or: their leader was not called Moses -Or: there cannot have been anyone who accomplished all that the Bible relates of Moses-Or: etc. etc. We may say, following Russell: the name “Moses”-can be defined by means of various descriptions. For example, as “the man who led the Israelites through the wilderness” , "the man who lived at that time and place and was then called 'Moses " “the man who as a child was taken out of the Nile by Pharaoh’s daughter” and so on. And according as we assume one definition or another the proposition "Moses did not exist? acquires a different sense, and so does every other proposition about Moses. -And if we are told “N did not exist”, we do ask: “What do you mean? Do you want to say . . . … Or . . . … etc.?” But when I make a statement about Moses, am I always ready to substitute some one of these descriptions for “Moses”? I shall perhaps say: By “Moses” I understand the man who did what the Bible relates of Moses, or at any rate a good deal of it. But how much? Have I decided how much must be proved false for me to give up my proposition as false? Has the name “Moses” got a fixed and unequivocal use for me in all possible cases? Is it not the case that I have, so to speak, a whole series of props in readiness, and am ready to lean on one if another should be taken from under me and vice versa?

Consider another case. When I say “N is dead”, then something like the following may hold for the meaning of the name “N”: I believe that a human being has lived, whom I (1) have seen in such-and-such places, who (2) looked like this (pictures), (3) has done such-and-such things, and (4) bore the name “N” in social life. Asked what I understand by “N”, I should enumerate all or some of these points, and different ones on different occasions. So my definition of “N” would perhaps be “the man of whom all this is true”. But if some point now proves false?-Shall I be prepared to declare the proposition “N is dead” false- even if it is only something which strikes me as incidental that has turned out false? But where are the bounds of the incidental?-If I had given a definition of the name in such a case, I should now be ready to alter it.

And this can be expressed like this: I use the name “N” without a fixed meaning. But that detracts as little from its usefulness, as it detracts from that of a table that it stands on four legs instead of three and so sometimes wobbles.)

Should it be said that I am using a word whose meaning I don’t know, and so am talking nonsense? Say what you choose, so long as it does not prevent you from seeing the facts. (And when you see them there is a good deal that you will not say.)

Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations

The meme does get at an important point though -

Our classifications of things have no impact on the things themselves. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. We create the category “planet” as a useful tool for referring to certain categories of astronomical objects. These objects would exist whether we had words for them are not.

There are patterns in what the word “planet” describes that would also be shared, whether all of those things were called “planets” are not, but the words themselves are just useful shorthands depending on the context that we use them in. The map is not the territory; the referent is not the reference.

(This is also about sex/gender.)

Hasn’t Elon said that he’s “retiring” like every month 47 has been in office?

Just bullshit to try to appease Tesla investors.

Yeah, he’s a really low effort bad faith troll that’s been basically just walking into conversations to sling shit everywhere for months. Not even worth interacting with.

This is why capitalists align with fascists.

Google, Meta, etc, are all taking the knee, because no regulation lets them slurp up our data. Target is shooting itself in the foot on DEI to appease stupid Mussolini, because a fascist autocrat doesn’t enforce labor protections.

Did John Romero make anyone his bitch with that one?

The only way to stop this shit is to live and fight.

Drops had an ai feature where it would show you a “fact” at the end of each session, which was often completely wrong etymology.

Which is usually a benefit for them. You call enforcement when they start talking about labor conditions or unions.

The fascists are morons and overplayed their hand.

Dunning-Kruger is very overstated.

The original paper by Dunning and Kruger starts with the quote: “It is one of the essential features of incompetence that the person so inflicted is incapable of knowing that they are incompetent.” This idea has spread far and wide through both scientific literature and pop culture alike. But according to the work of my colleagues and me, the reality is that very few people are truly unskilled and unaware. The Dunning and Kruger experiment did find a real effect – most people think they are better than average. But according to my team’s work, that is all Dunning and Kruger showed. The reality is that people have an innate ability to gauge their competence and knowledge. To claim otherwise suggests, incorrectly, that much of the population is hopelessly ignorant.

Think more.

I’m poor as shit and I think I’m pretty damn smart.

My ex was a trust fund baby and dumb as rocks. I did his college capstone for him.

OpenSciEd is a model that teaches science like that. There’s been a ton of pushback from conservatives.

The videos and stills show soldiers forcing Palestinian men to parade in their underwear, abusing captives, looting and vandalising homes and even dressing up in women’s clothing they ransacked.

[…]

HRF lawyers and online activists trawl through mountains of images and videos submitted to them online to verify and geolocate each one, check its metadata and verify its chain of custody, from the soldier filming it through to HRF, Abou Jahjah explained.

Where the perpetrator is a dual national, HRF seeks prosecution under the second country’s existing laws on war crimes and in the case of sole Israeli citizens, collate legal files, which are then filed as evidence with the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Abou Jahjah has also been personally threatened by Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli, who – alluding to the attacks on Hezbollah’s members’ communication systems in September 2024 – told him to “watch your pager”.