And now a direct link to Arse Technica, too. Sigh.
Anyway, yeah, this is the new normal. It's not like it matters, these lists were always shit, it's what journos publish when they're too high or hungover to shit out essay number 123509872345 about the plight of the <protected class> in <genre>.
Perhaps "Summer Reading Lists" are different? They can be made with books you intend to read over the summer? That'd be fine.
But these books don't even exist.
I had no idea people disliked this site, I'll try to remember to archive it if I somehow want to link it again.
9 of the 10 fake book descriptions follow the exact same pattern: they blab about another book the author wrote. The 5 real book descriptions, presumably written by the human, do not.
The subject matter of the fake books? Climate change, climate activism, Ai, gender, natural disaster. Most include some "family life" aspects too. Ai is a Progressive nit-wit.
It seems that the referenced books are indeed real. I checked 4 of them. All are very recent too :/
For me I see the most hallucination when Iām asking for things that donāt exist. I can only assume he was looking for far-left rubbish to recommend, and had no interest in relative quality
Honestly, given it is 2025 I would be surprised if this grown man had even read 15 whole books to make a list from to begin with. Post school reading is basically a dead hobby for the majority of people.
I'm going to assume that's the truth underneath this all. He was given an assignment of 15, only had 5, and tried to bluff the rest to hide the shameful secret.
But this is absolutely going to be the new normal, and they will just keep cycling sacrificial lambs to it until it gets indistinguishable enough that they stop getting caught.
Lazy operator error and skills issues. Instead of spending 1-2 hours to churn out articles no one gives a shit about, have AI bang it out and spend 1 hour being its editor while you have youtube running on your side monitor. How hard is that?
It's like those lawyers who submitted briefs citing cases hallucinated by GPT3.5. The news never let it go. Sure enough it was mentioned again in this article. It was 2023, get over it.
Okay, I generated 25 more titles and authors and replaced two with fake but believable sounding titles and authors.
GPT, Gemini, Grok all caught the fakes.
However, Meta tells me all the titles are realāeven more pathetic is that even Poe's assistantātheir cheapest AIācaught the fakes without web search. Facebook, get your shit together.
The authors' names are real, the book titles are not. I'm guessing the synopsis are also fake too, eh? šø
I noticed the first 10 are fake & the last 5 are real. Seems odd? Did he 'generate' 10 titles and then added 5 he liked? If so: massive fail.
He got fired (freelancer, he won't be getting work from them any longer) but how does such a grievous mistake (a "disaster" they called it) make it to print? Actual, physical print!
How do you even get fake titles from an AI in 2025? what model did he use that's this bad? I asked chatgpt 4o to gen up 25 books with the theme of beach, murder and romance and it gave me 25 verified* books
*verified by 3 different AI with websearch feature, which is good enough for me, if my livelihood depended on it I would go title by title on amazon and goodreads.
Oh and where's the editor? What was she doing? I'm assuming female because of course it's going to be a woman... searches... yup and a chubbo to boot.
Iām watching a Truthstream Media vid right now thatās all about how often AI lies. Experts call it a hallucination, not a lie, but if I said the same shit, Iād be called a liar. AI āhallucinatesā as often as 72% of the time, and the experts are saying this is an issue that will never go away, all of the LLM AIās do itā¦.so if you think itās a good idea to get answers from AI, or that it should write a paper for you, be aware, you still have to go over the entire paper and make sure itās not inserting lies with fake citations. Lawyers are using them to cite previous precedent that was set and the AI is using real cases and real judges, but itās lying about what the cases were about, and what precedent was set. Gonna be fun having an AI doctor
And now a direct link to Arse Technica, too. Sigh.
Anyway, yeah, this is the new normal. It's not like it matters, these lists were always shit, it's what journos publish when they're too high or hungover to shit out essay number 123509872345 about the plight of the <protected class> in <genre>.
Perhaps "Summer Reading Lists" are different? They can be made with books you intend to read over the summer? That'd be fine.
But these books don't even exist.
I had no idea people disliked this site, I'll try to remember to archive it if I somehow want to link it again.
9 of the 10 fake book descriptions follow the exact same pattern: they blab about another book the author wrote. The 5 real book descriptions, presumably written by the human, do not.
The subject matter of the fake books? Climate change, climate activism, Ai, gender, natural disaster. Most include some "family life" aspects too. Ai is a Progressive nit-wit.
It seems that the referenced books are indeed real. I checked 4 of them. All are very recent too :/
For me I see the most hallucination when Iām asking for things that donāt exist. I can only assume he was looking for far-left rubbish to recommend, and had no interest in relative quality
Honestly, given it is 2025 I would be surprised if this grown man had even read 15 whole books to make a list from to begin with. Post school reading is basically a dead hobby for the majority of people.
I'm going to assume that's the truth underneath this all. He was given an assignment of 15, only had 5, and tried to bluff the rest to hide the shameful secret.
But this is absolutely going to be the new normal, and they will just keep cycling sacrificial lambs to it until it gets indistinguishable enough that they stop getting caught.
Journalists being lying pieces of shit is the āold normal.ā
At least they wrote their own lies back in my day, on a manual typewriter!
Lazy operator error and skills issues. Instead of spending 1-2 hours to churn out articles no one gives a shit about, have AI bang it out and spend 1 hour being its editor while you have youtube running on your side monitor. How hard is that?
It's like those lawyers who submitted briefs citing cases hallucinated by GPT3.5. The news never let it go. Sure enough it was mentioned again in this article. It was 2023, get over it.
Okay, I generated 25 more titles and authors and replaced two with fake but believable sounding titles and authors.
GPT, Gemini, Grok all caught the fakes.
However, Meta tells me all the titles are realāeven more pathetic is that even Poe's assistantātheir cheapest AIācaught the fakes without web search. Facebook, get your shit together.
Fake book
The authors' names are real, the book titles are not. I'm guessing the synopsis are also fake too, eh? šø
I noticed the first 10 are fake & the last 5 are real. Seems odd? Did he 'generate' 10 titles and then added 5 he liked? If so: massive fail.
He got fired (freelancer, he won't be getting work from them any longer) but how does such a grievous mistake (a "disaster" they called it) make it to print? Actual, physical print!
How do you even get fake titles from an AI in 2025? what model did he use that's this bad? I asked chatgpt 4o to gen up 25 books with the theme of beach, murder and romance and it gave me 25 verified* books
*verified by 3 different AI with websearch feature, which is good enough for me, if my livelihood depended on it I would go title by title on amazon and goodreads.
Oh and where's the editor? What was she doing? I'm assuming female because of course it's going to be a woman... searches... yup and a chubbo to boot.
I used to read Arstechnica, then the writers I liked were found to be buddies with all the wrong people involved at the beginning of Gamergate.
Archive it if you must use it as a source.
As soon as I found out how deep the Gawker rabbit hole went, I stopped reading ALL of their publications cold turkey and have never read one since.
Bro, not an archive for Ars Technica?
C'mon now.
I had no idea people here didn't like them, for pretty solid reasons. I'll try to keep it in mind.
Iām watching a Truthstream Media vid right now thatās all about how often AI lies. Experts call it a hallucination, not a lie, but if I said the same shit, Iād be called a liar. AI āhallucinatesā as often as 72% of the time, and the experts are saying this is an issue that will never go away, all of the LLM AIās do itā¦.so if you think itās a good idea to get answers from AI, or that it should write a paper for you, be aware, you still have to go over the entire paper and make sure itās not inserting lies with fake citations. Lawyers are using them to cite previous precedent that was set and the AI is using real cases and real judges, but itās lying about what the cases were about, and what precedent was set. Gonna be fun having an AI doctor
Can't even proof check a bot? So what does he do with the rest of his day?
I seen a time magazine recently with 100 must read books. All of them looked like unrecognizable trash.