iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

I have no endeavor, this is a hypothetical. This use-case is fun and interesting, but not worth postponing the Butlerian Jihad for. You seem cool, if you look at my timeline you'll see I'm pretty cool too. Thank you for the discussion.

110

I'm not ignoring your objections, I just don't think consistency or human-like understanding is necessary for this task. The test isn't meant to be dispositive in every case, but if an LLM finishes the story the way I would have, that's a sign I need to rethink it.

100

I would say you are making generalizations convenient to your thesis. It's true, predictability isn't always a bad thing, in those cases, don't do this. But sometimes you do want to avoid it, or even just make it less formulaic. This could have helped the writers of The Mentalist of they had it.

100

That's the neat part: you don't! This is why I say we are talking past each other. William proposed using LLMs in a way almost opposite to what I think most people do and how you seem to be envisioning it. It's not an editor, nor is it an audience reader. It is basically an example of failure.

100

I agree with you, but I think you are talking past the suggestion. You're not asking them to recognize banality. You're asking them to BE banal, which is kind of the one thing they're good at.

100

Maybe there was some ambiguity in my grammar. When I say, "I'm not sure what you're arguing for," I'm not saying, "Why are you arguing?" I'm saying, "I don't know what point you are making the case for." I'm guessing that is what you read as "cranky," but that's not what's going on.

100

Sure, and again, you can and should still do that. The point of this use-case isn't to optimize for smart or less smart people. Everyone has value and an ability to appreciate literature. But LLMs don't, they are truly banal. Which makes them unsuited for any creative task except testing banality.

100

I was actually replying to my friend, but I'm happy to engage with you. Still, I don't quite understand your point. If it's not clear, this proposed use-case is damnation with faint praise. You don't have to convince anyone here that AI is generally pretty bad.

100

I mean, sure, you can and should still do that. I don't know what you're arguing for.

100

I agree that OG spellcheckers work better than an AI editor. I don't think editing is the suggestion here. Also, you seem like a smart person, and the idea isn't to get your smart friends to give you constructive feedback, it's to shit-test your own work against a banal "mind."

100

Jessica @damselfly.bsky.social · 20/09/2026

There isn't exactly a market of "basic-bitch speedreader friends who don't mind reading your draft samples for free and guessing where you're going" to displace with gen AI. If the job of the bot is to be a benchmark of failure, I think that's the first good non-technical use-case I've seen for it.

100

Part of this is the fault of consultants. They're all pigeon-brained cargo cultists who saw something 34 years ago work once, that never worked before or since, but are all convinced it is a cannon event for any successful Democratic candidate. These people need to go learn a trade.

011

Jessica @damselfly.bsky.social · 20/09/2026

At least IRL I have a chance of convincing somebody of something, even if it's only moving them modestly. Here, it's just treated as a competition: who dunked on who, who ratioed who, who blocked who. It feels so pointless.

120

Jessica @damselfly.bsky.social · 18/09/2026

I'm absolutely shaking with anger. This is the stupidity of the bathroom debate laid bare. They'd rather let a trans child die violently than take shelter in ANY locker room, either out of bigotry or fear for violating transphobic laws. And they still have no resolution, just apologies and promises.

nbcwashington.com

Transgender Student Excluded During Lockdown Drill, Group Says

Officials at a Virginia middle school are facing criticism after allegedly barring a transgender student from using the boys’ or girls’ locker rooms during an active shooter drill.

011

Jessica @damselfly.bsky.social · 18/09/2026

Joe Rogan HAS been left wing his whole life. He's also been right wing his whole life. He's always been an enlightened centrist. He's also apolitical and above the left/right paradigm. He's part of the IDW, or not. It's easy when your ideology is totally reformed every time you talk to a new crank.

000

Jessica @damselfly.bsky.social · 18/09/2026

His one job was to write exculpatory slop on behalf of a genocidal regime for Bari Weiss' right-wing rag.

030

Jessica @damselfly.bsky.social · 17/09/2026

No, she's a an incumbent or 40+ years. She's actually 80.

050

Jessica @damselfly.bsky.social · 17/09/2026

Cue: all the BlueSky libs coming out of the woodwork to shout about how we mustn't criticize her because it's more important to beat the Republicans than protect transgender children and also our votes aren't important enough to court but also if Dems lose it's our fault.

030

Jessica @damselfly.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

It's like clockwork: three months before a critical election, Democrats completely abandon their stated principles to court an imaginary center-right electorate, then blame their eventual loss on the most marginal people they betrayed.

000

Jessica @damselfly.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

There are two wolves inside of you: one listens to pop radio and wants to eat Ed Sheeran. The other has never heard of Ed Sheeran and also wants to eat him. Which one will win? The one you feed Ed Sheeran to.

000

Jessica @damselfly.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Go into Google Maps, select a random spot in the middle of Lake Ontario, and suggest an edit.

000

What part did you play? What did you win, and for whom? You do the work of Power by demanding inoffensive passivity and meekness of people seeking something Power never intends to give. Also, your "It's fine until the death camps" take is plain evil. You don't deserve your self-congratulatory lies.

000

You agree with something irrelevant that I never said. Centrist Dems have betrayed the Left over and over, all with this VBNMW mantra, all with promises of "after the election." We learned our lesson. No amount of quiet acquiescence, let alone "grace and humility," ever wins a struggle for justice.

001

Not with allies who "Vote Blue No Matter Who," we don't.

110

That's rank nonsense, you don't have leverage after the election, only before. And the second you tell them they have your vote no matter what, they will never stop betraying you. Worse, you are rewarding them for moving rightward, reinforcing the Dems worst instincts. Never again.

210

Depends who you are. If you're not personally in the crosshairs of one, sure, it's temporarily better for YOU, but not for their targets. In the medium term, electing an awful Dem is providing Trump an ally (or at least a stooge) in the Dem party. A Fetterman can do more harm than a Hawley or a Mace

120

People are doing that. But when they do, the transphobic Dems freeze trans people out of that process. Take the debacle with Amy Acton after her transphobic statements. She set a meeting with LGBT groups, didn't show up, then her staff kicked the trans members of those groups out of the meeting.

120

No, "blue no matter who" is HOW you get these awful Dems. When a Dem says the same transphobic shit the GOP says, that Dem should not get to count on trans people's votes. Notice how "Blue No Matter Who" suddenly disappears from centrist mouths as soon as a DSA-backed candidate wins the nomination.

130

Nah, we are gonna steal the Democratic Party, just like the Tea Party and later MAGA stole the GOP. Then we are going to use it to end the two-party system.

000

Lol, so this tool blocked me! No surprise. This whole time he argued with strawmen, dismised the existential threats to trans people as "feelings," and blamed trans people for an election loss with a margin larger than all the trans people in America using made-up rationale. Just a transphobic Dem.

000

Cool. So did I. But it also isn't want she said, and was talked about in trans spaces in terms of, "Well, that is disappointing and a non-answer to a loaded question. Hope she finds a backbone after the election." Now, are you done putting words into imaginary trans people's mouths?

200

understand your confusion if you believe centrism is a political position. It's not, it's a political strategy. And you'll note I don't use centrist and awful interchangeably. Most Democrats are not transphobic, a handful are. Democratic leadership employs centrism, and that's why they lose.

010

Lol, almost no trans person refused to vote for her over that, your imaginary trans friends notwithstanding. That mildly disappointing take was actually used after the election to counter the centrist Dem claim that she lost because she had "gone too far in supporting trans rights."

100

I'm glad you'll work with principled people to defeat Trump. But we aren't talking about Trump, we are talking about a handful of awful Dems. Supporting them uncritically doesn't help defeat Trump, it just infects the Democratic party with his politics. With centrism, even when you win, you lose.

100

Sure ya have, buddy. You seem really plugged into the trans community. And they all hate Kamala? Why? I'm sure your reply won't be dismissive, evasive, and incoherent.

100

Perhaps. I've read every post on this thread and nobody has said what you're alleging. I've talked to many, many trans people, all of them who could voted for Kamala. I know centrist Dems tried hard to blame trans people and Muslims and leftists for her loss. So what am I missing that you see?

100

It is a thought experiment. It is intended to demonstrate a principle in clearer terms. We both know why you won't answer. Nobody is minimizing Trump's harms. We all hate Trump intensely. Some Dems are good, and some Dems are transphobic or Zionist. They are also responsible for those dead bodies.

100

Nobody in this thread has said that. It doesn't even make sense in this context given that Kamala isn't transphobic. You are arguing against strawmen. I've asked you before and I'll ask again: to defeat Trump and Republicans, would you support a DSA-backed candidate?

100

You really don't have the slightest grasp on anything anyone here is saying, do you? Yes there are limits to what we will tolerate from a Dem. Yes, we will vote for Dems who don't exceed those limits. Yes, we will criticize the many bad Dems. It's pretty coherent.

100

Real people being hurt, you say? Let's do a little thought experiment. Imagine a Democratic nominee comes out as a racist and promises to roll back the civil rights act of 1964. Would a black voter be justified in saying, that, no, I'm not voting for the racist Democrat who wants to hurt me?

100

Not sure why you're blaming us for Kamala losing, virtually everyone here voted for her out of self-preservation. I'm starting to think that you don't actually have any convictions other than centrism. Which is very sad. It's also a losing strategy, as Kamala learned.

110

I mean, if you're going to gesture at your issues, and feel that they require the sacrifice of mine, it's a bitch-ass move to then say you won't talk about them. We lose majorities by having candidate nobody can enthusiastically support. You can move candidates through criticism, through pressure.

100

I simply asked what those issues are, because you have decided that they are worth throwing a lot of people under the bus for. It's not a sin, unless you're feeling guilty about them.

200

Yes, primaries. Everyone here is saying, "Let's get better, non-transphobic Dems in the primaries and not promise our vote to someone who hates us." What's the issue? You still haven't said what your very important issues are, but let me ask: would you vote for a DSA-backed nominee in the general?

100

Really? What are those issues? They must be very important to you, since seem to believe that the only candidates that can serve those issues and win are the transphobic ones. Why?

100

That's obviously false. Where are you getting that? We want better democratic candidates, we are saying blue, only if you don't want to erase me from public life. Blue, but not if you want to do genocide. That's not a high bar.

100