No, the phrasing makes it clear someone wrote a fictional account of becoming self aware that the output of vibe coding isn’t maintainable as it scales.
I’m entirely too trusting and would like to know what about the phrasing tips you off that it’s fictional. Back on Reddit I remember so many claims about posts being fake and I was never able to tease out what distinguished the “omg fake! r/thathappened” posts from the ones that weren’t accused of that, and I feel this is a skill I should be able to have on some level. Although taking an amusing post that wasn’t real as real doesn’t always have bad consequences.
But I mostly asked because I’m curious about the weird extra width on letters.
That’s a bit difficult because I already go into anything from The Onion knowing it’s intended to be humorous/satirical.
What I lack in ability to recognize satire or outright deception from posts written online, I make up for by reading comment threads: seeing people accuse things of being fake, seeing people defend it as true, seeing people point out the entire intention of a website is satire, seeing people who had a joke go over their heads get it explained… relying on the collective hivemind to help me out where I am deficient. It’s not a perfect solution at all, especially since people can judge wrong—I bet some “omg so fake” threads were actually real, and some astroturf-type things written to influence others without real experience behind it got through as real.
When something is too “on the nose,” for example, it’s written in exactly the way that would induce the most cheering and virality because it appeals so much to one group of people, it’s worth considering it may have been written to provoke exactly that reaction.
I really wish people did not do this. This isn’t something I was ever taught to look for, and I like to think I got a good education. I was taught to make sure my source is credible, to consider biases and spin and what things are facts and what is just opinion, but I wasn’t taught to look for a lot of deception people call out online. But I guess I have to live with this and gain the skill to look for deception. Genuinely, thanks for helping me, since I don’t think I ever would have figured out what raises “fake” flags in most peoples’ heads on my own.
AmidFuror’s description is on point and I see it as a variant of Poe’s Law. Instead of sarcasm being mistaken for a real belief, it is presenting a fictional account of someone being self aware that is mistaken for someone actually becoming self aware.
There are two lines that make me absolutely certain it is written by someone who it not a vibe coder and is leaning into the sarcasm.
‘pulling out my wallet for someone that knows what they are doing’ implies the poster knows they don’t know what they are doing
‘vibe coding is just roleplaying for guys who want to feel like hackers’ is a joke I’ve seen directed at vibe coders more than once
Keep in mind that not all deception is malicious, but most people see the word deception as having a negative implication. An actor/actress pretending to be someone else is technically deceptive the same way as whoever wrote this hilarious post. They are presenting a fictional account for an audience.
You are right about the thespian thing, but when you watch TV/film/theatre everyone is in on the “joke” and we all know they’re not really falling in love, getting murdered, or whatever dramatic happening. I’m not sure if OOP is just trying to entertain and expects everyone to realize they’re joking, which would stick them on the thespian side, or if they have other motives. But hey, interesting point to bring up!
No, the text itself. No vibe coder would write something like that. The artifacts you mentioned are the result of simple horizontal and vertical upscaling. If you zoom in you can see it better.
Is that what the weird extra width on some letters is, artifacts from some AI generating the post?
No, the phrasing makes it clear someone wrote a fictional account of becoming self aware that the output of vibe coding isn’t maintainable as it scales.
I’m entirely too trusting and would like to know what about the phrasing tips you off that it’s fictional. Back on Reddit I remember so many claims about posts being fake and I was never able to tease out what distinguished the “omg fake! r/thathappened” posts from the ones that weren’t accused of that, and I feel this is a skill I should be able to have on some level. Although taking an amusing post that wasn’t real as real doesn’t always have bad consequences.
But I mostly asked because I’m curious about the weird extra width on letters.
Interesting. Curious for a point of comparison how The Onion reads to you.
(Only a mediocre point of comparison I fear, but)
That’s a bit difficult because I already go into anything from The Onion knowing it’s intended to be humorous/satirical.
What I lack in ability to recognize satire or outright deception from posts written online, I make up for by reading comment threads: seeing people accuse things of being fake, seeing people defend it as true, seeing people point out the entire intention of a website is satire, seeing people who had a joke go over their heads get it explained… relying on the collective hivemind to help me out where I am deficient. It’s not a perfect solution at all, especially since people can judge wrong—I bet some “omg so fake” threads were actually real, and some astroturf-type things written to influence others without real experience behind it got through as real.
deleted by creator
When something is too “on the nose,” for example, it’s written in exactly the way that would induce the most cheering and virality because it appeals so much to one group of people, it’s worth considering it may have been written to provoke exactly that reaction.
Thanks!
I really wish people did not do this. This isn’t something I was ever taught to look for, and I like to think I got a good education. I was taught to make sure my source is credible, to consider biases and spin and what things are facts and what is just opinion, but I wasn’t taught to look for a lot of deception people call out online. But I guess I have to live with this and gain the skill to look for deception. Genuinely, thanks for helping me, since I don’t think I ever would have figured out what raises “fake” flags in most peoples’ heads on my own.
AmidFuror’s description is on point and I see it as a variant of Poe’s Law. Instead of sarcasm being mistaken for a real belief, it is presenting a fictional account of someone being self aware that is mistaken for someone actually becoming self aware.
There are two lines that make me absolutely certain it is written by someone who it not a vibe coder and is leaning into the sarcasm.
Keep in mind that not all deception is malicious, but most people see the word deception as having a negative implication. An actor/actress pretending to be someone else is technically deceptive the same way as whoever wrote this hilarious post. They are presenting a fictional account for an audience.
You are right about the thespian thing, but when you watch TV/film/theatre everyone is in on the “joke” and we all know they’re not really falling in love, getting murdered, or whatever dramatic happening. I’m not sure if OOP is just trying to entertain and expects everyone to realize they’re joking, which would stick them on the thespian side, or if they have other motives. But hey, interesting point to bring up!
They knew the two lines that I quoted would clue in most people who dislike vibe coding that it was a joke.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
r/thatHappened was the worst thing to happen to Reddit and I sincerely hate whoever created that sub
No, the text itself. No vibe coder would write something like that. The artifacts you mentioned are the result of simple horizontal and vertical upscaling. If you zoom in you can see it better.
Thanks!
You’e welcome!