Yeah, we're all in the death business now that OpenAI has succumbed to the corrupt Department of War.

Let's see proof of your cancellation boys and girls.

Guess what Raj might be doing right now?

For context, I don’t use ChatGPT much outside of asking for quick instructions for things, and certainly haven’t ever mentioned anything about politics or my political beliefs.

​

Prompt:

Main subject: young Korean woman, early 20s, natural everyday appearance, faded charcoal-grey sleeveless crop top, loose high-waisted light-wash jeans, black canvas sneakers, black cord necklace, black wavy hair in a messy side ponytail with wispy bangs. Realistic skin texture, minimal makeup, warm and approachable personality. Maintain consistent identity, clothing, hairstyle, and appearance throughout the entire video.

Location: Authentic Korean residential neighborhood during a calm late morning. Narrow concrete alleys, low-rise homes, small terraces, potted plants, laundry lines, bicycles, utility poles, overhead wires, mature trees casting moving shadows, quiet residential atmosphere. No stores, advertisements, cafés, crowds, or commercial activity.

Visual Style: Ultra-realistic documentary realism. Genuine candid behavior. Natural body language. Unscripted slice-of-life feeling. Strong environmental authenticity. Rich real-world details and believable human motion.

Camera Style: Early-2000s consumer DV camcorder aesthetic. Friend casually recording everyday moments. Heavy handheld shake, imperfect framing, frequent autofocus hunting, lens breathing, exposure pumping when moving between sun and shade, occasional motion blur, subtle rolling shutter, mild digital compression artifacts, faded colors, soft contrast, slight sensor noise. No stabilization. No cinematic camera moves. No modern color grading.

00:00–00:02

Outside a small house entrance. She sits on a low concrete wall adjusting her ponytail with both hands raised. A light breeze moves loose strands of hair. She smiles naturally while the camera struggles to hold focus.

00:02–00:04

The camera follows her into a narrow alley lined with potted plants and concrete walls. She notices a stray cat approaching and crouches down. Framing drifts off-center as the operator tries to keep up.

00:04–00:06

She gently pets and feeds the cat. Autofocus repeatedly shifts between her face and the animal. Morning sunlight flickers through leaves overhead.

00:06–00:08

Small front yard beside her house. She hangs laundry on a clothesline while fabrics sway in the breeze. Exposure changes as clouds briefly pass overhead.

00:08–00:10

On a quiet terrace with a ceramic coffee cup. She sits comfortably watching the neighborhood, occasionally brushing hair behind her ear. Loose handheld side angle with natural camera drift.

00:10–00:12

Close side profile. Someone off-camera greets her. She turns, raises her hand, smiles warmly, and casually says, “Annyeong.” The camera catches the moment slightly late.

00:12–00:15

Walking slowly down a tree-lined residential lane holding her coffee cup. She notices the camera, gives a small genuine smile, then looks away and continues walking. Recording cuts abruptly to black mid-motion as if the camcorder was switched off.

Audio: Natural ambient sound only — morning birds, distant motorcycles, light wind, leaves rustling, faint neighborhood chatter, cat sounds, footsteps on concrete, fabric moving on clotheslines, subtle residential ambience. No music. No sound design. No narration.

Goal: Authentic Korean neighborhood life captured like a forgotten home video from the early 2000s — candid, imperfect, realistic, warm, and deeply believable.

Repost due to bad words

I feel like people in the STEM bubble don’t have any understanding of how the average person views AI, so let me illustrate an example

I work in Operations for a Railway (dispatch/traffic control/signaling). I recently finished a months long course for a professional certification. I don’t have work experience in tech, it’s just been a lifelong interest, but I’ve never programmed myself anything much more advanced than what a sophomore compsci major would produce.

The final exam took place on a signaling system simulator. I’ve had a pro subscription for a long time because I use it to create software for my personal music projects.

From there, after reading the Astra system card, I somehow came to the insane idea to recreate the simulator at home to practice on. So I created a new project, uploaded the course material, old exams and the user manuals for the simulation. After only 3 days back and forth,

It worked

In fact, it’s even better. Astra created a browser app that works natively anywhere. The real simulation software itself functions only on custom hardware and costs a couple hundred grand.

But what’s really important here is the implication. Based only on the rule books and some manuals, the AI now has a better understanding of how to perform my job than 99% of my colleagues.

They don’t get it. „it only makes slop“, „you can’t trust anything that comes from an AI“, or the most frequent is they simply don’t care to learn. They dont care about the implications

the average person outside the tech world is either still under the impression AI hasn’t advanced since 2023, or is so inundated with anti AI agitprop, they have no idea what’s coming.

If a dumbass like me could create a bot that could realistically replace an entire profession and hundreds of thousands of jobs in only 3 days, there is no way that my job, or anyone else’s job at the operational level will be remotely the same, if it even exist in 5 years time. And that’s extremely generous.

We are not prepared.

Professor here. ChatGPT has ruined my life. It’s turned me into a human plagiarism-detector. I can’t read a paper without wondering if a real human wrote it and learned anything, or if a student just generated a bunch of flaccid garbage and submitted it. It’s made me suspicious of my students, and I hate feeling like that because most of them don’t deserve it.

I actually get excited when I find typos and grammatical errors in their writing now.

The biggest issue—hands down—is that ChatGPT makes blatant errors when it comes to the knowledge base in my field (ancient history). I don’t know if ChatGPT scrapes the internet as part of its training, but I wouldn’t be surprised because it produces completely inaccurate stuff about ancient texts—akin to crap that appears on conspiracy theorist blogs. Sometimes ChatGPT’s information is weak because—gird your loins—specialized knowledge about those texts exists only in obscure books, even now.

I’ve had students turn in papers that confidently cite non-existent scholarship, or even worse, non-existent quotes from ancient texts that the class supposedly read together and discussed over multiple class periods. It’s heartbreaking to know they consider everything we did in class to be useless.

My constant struggle is how to convince them that getting an education in the humanities is not about regurgitating ideas/knowledge that already exist. It’s about generating new knowledge, striving for creative insights, and having thoughts that haven’t been had before. I don’t want you to learn facts. I want you to think. To notice. To question. To reconsider. To challenge. Students don’t yet get that ChatGPT only rearranges preexisting ideas, whether they are accurate or not.

And even if the information was guaranteed to be accurate, they’re not learning anything by plugging a prompt in and turning in the resulting paper. They’ve bypassed the entire process of learning.

Been experimenting with a bunch of screenshot images and chatGPT is surprisingly good at generating UI’s

TLDR; opposing counsel just filed a brief that is 100% an AI hallucination. The hearing is on Tuesday.

I'm an attorney practicing civil litigation. Without going to far into it, we represent a client who has been sued over a commercial licensing agreement. Opposing counsel is a collections firm. Definitely not very tech-savvy, and generally they just try their best to keep their heads above water. Recently, we filed a motion to dismiss, and because of the proximity to the trial date, the court ordered shortened time for them to respond. They filed an opposition (never served it on us) and I went ahead and downloaded it from the court's website when I realized it was late.

I began reading it, and it was damning. Cases I had never heard of with perfect quotes that absolutely destroyed the basis of our motion. I like to think I'm pretty good at legal research and writing, and generally try to be familiar with relevant cases prior to filing a motion. Granted, there's a lot of case law, and it can be easy to miss authority. Still, this was absurd. State Supreme Court cases which held the exact opposite of my client's position. Multiple appellate court cases which used entirely different standards to the one I stated in my motion. It was devastating.

Then, I began looking up the cited cases, just in case I could distinguish the facts, or make some colorable argument for why my motion wasn't a complete waste of the court's time. That's when I discovered they didn't exist. Or the case name existed, but the citation didn't. Or the citation existed, but the quote didn't appear in the text.

I began a spreadsheet, listing out the cases, the propositions/quotes contained in the brief, and then an analysis of what was wrong. By the end of my analysis, I determined that every single case cited in the brief was inaccurate, and not a single quote existed. I was half relieved and half astounded. Relieved that I didn't completely miss the mark in my pleadings, but also astounded that a colleague would file something like this with the court. It was utterly false. Nothing-- not the argument, not the law, not the quotes-- was accurate.

Then, I started looking for the telltale signs of AI. The use of em dashes (just like I just used-- did you catch it?) The formatting. The random bolding and bullet points. The fact that it was (unnecessarily) signed under penalty of perjury. The caption page used the judges nickname, and the information was out of order (my jurisdiction is pretty specific on how the judge's name, department, case name, hearing date, etc. are laid out on the front page). It hit me, this attorney was under a time crunch and just ran the whole thing through ChatGPT, copied and pasted it, and filed it.

This attorney has been practicing almost as long as I've been alive, and my guess is that he has no idea that AI will hallucinate authority to support your position, whether it exists or not. Needless to say, my reply brief was unequivocal about my findings. I included the chart I had created, and was very clear about an attorney's duty of candor to the court.

The hearing is next Tuesday, and I can't wait to see what the judge does with this. It's going to be a learning experience for everyone.

***EDIT***

He just filed a motion to be relieved as counsel.

EDIT #2

The hearing on the motion to be relieved as counsel is set for the same day as the hearing on the motion to dismiss. He's not getting out of this one.

EDIT #3

I must admit I came away from the hearing a bit deflated. The motion was not successful, and trial will continue as scheduled. Opposing counsel (who signed the brief) did not appear at the hearing. He sent an associate attorney who knew nothing aside from saying "we're investigating the matter." The Court was very clear that these were misleading and false statements of the law, and noted that the court's own research attorneys did not catch the bogus citations until they read my Reply. The motion to be relieved as counsel was withdrawn.

The court did, however, set an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") hearing in October as to whether the court should report the attorney to the State Bar for reportable misconduct of “Misleading a judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law or offering evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. (Bus. & Prof. Code, section 6086, subd. (d); California Rule of Professional Responsibility 3.3, subd. (a)(1), (a)(3).)”

The OSC is set for after trial is over, so it will not have any impact on the case. I had hoped to have more for all of you who expressed interest, but it looks like we're waiting until October.

Edit#4

If you're still hanging on, we won the case on the merits. The same associate from the hearing tried the case himself and failed miserably. The OSC for his boss is still slated for October. The court told the associate to look up the latest case of AI malfeasance, Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. prior that hearing.

Make a cover image for a non-existent videogame that you think I'd love.

An investigation by the 404 Media news outlet has revealed more insights into this practice after it agreed with a bookseller to place an AirTag in a rare book that would ship as part of a bulk order. The device showed that the book ended up in Amazon’s AI training facility in Las Vegas, Nevada. What do you think?

AI tools used: Midjourney Hailuo 2.0 (99% of shots) Kling (opening shot) Adobe Firefly Magnific Enhancor Elevenlabs

In a way when actual directors start using it like say in the video above (Chris Chapel), It is not so slop anymore. Meaning when AI is put in the hand of artists it will only get better and better plus add progression of the technology and you'll get something almost indistinguishable from reality. It's just a matter of time before a "if you can't beat em, join em" era starts in film. Many directors hate it for now and that's good, but damn is it getting close in many ways. Just imagine 10 years, 15, 20!?

I know it can’t just be me.

I work around AI a lot, so I’ve gotten pretty good at noticing some patterns or tells which come with it, like even beyond the obvious em dashes and "not just x, it's y" or "straight up" or "era" or "honestly? that's growth"

People have started typing like an aggregate of every post on reddit crossed with wikipedia

not just people that obviously helped it to translate or had issues with it, in casual text too

And it’s started to mess with me a little.
it wouldn't have been such a big deal if it were just text either, I pick this up in conversations and it actually catches me off guard

Is AI training people as much as we train it with how exposed we are to that writing
everything feels so right and soulless but without an opinion

tbh when I pick up on these things now, I've lost so much empathy that I just lose trust in the communications from that person

... and honestly? that's not an issue that's growth (maybe)