Comment by DonHopkins

3 days ago

I'll let his real and simulated words speak for themselves. Read the book, see the movie, then read the web page, and VIEW SOURCE for TRUTH COMMENTS.

All the source code and documentation is on github for you to read too, but since you brag about not reading, then I don't expect you to read any of these links or his real or simulated work so you could answer that question for yourself, and when you ask questions not intending to read the answers, that just comes off like sealioning:

https://github.com/SimHacker/lloooomm/tree/main/00-Character...

https://lloooomm.com/hunter-homepage.html

5 comments

DonHopkins

ben_w 3 days ago

You're the one who brought him up, how about you compare and contrast in your own words.

After all, it's quality, not source code, that is the question here. And you're making a quality judgment — which is fine, and I expect them to differ in interesting ways, but the question is: can you, personally, elucidate that difference?

Not the AI itself, not the author of the mode, you.

> All the source code and documentation is on github for you to read too, but since you brag about not reading

I didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth.

Here's some, but not all, of the authors whose works I've consumed recently:

Kim Stanley Robinson, P.G. Wodehouse, Agatha Christie, V.A. Lewis, Arthur Conan Doyle, Andy Weir, Andrew J. Robinson, Scott Meyer, John W. Campbell, David Brin, Jules Verne, Carl Sagan, Michael Palin, Arthur C. Clarke, Frank Herbert, Poul Anderson, Larry Niven, Steven Barnes, David and Leigh Eddings, Carl Jung, Neil Gaiman, Lindsey Davis, Trudi Canavan, John Mortimer, Robert Louis Stevenson, Larry Niven, Edward M. Lerner, Francis Bacon, Stephen Baxter, Geoffrey Chaucer, Dennis E. Taylor, H. G. Wells, Yahtzee Croshaw, Greg Egan, Terry Pratchett, Ursula K. Le Guin, Dan Simmons, Alexandre Dumas, Philip Reeve, Tom Sharpe, Fritz Leiber, Richard Wiseman, Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths, Chris Hadfield, Adrian Tchaikovsky, G. S. Denning, Frank Herbert, Alastair Reynolds, Vernor Vinge, Neal Stephenson, Jerry Pournelle, Matt Parker, Robert Heinlein, Charles Stross, Philip R. Johnson, and Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

DonHopkins 3 days ago

Again with the sealioning.

Read it and make up your mind for yourself, because if you won't read any of the links or any of Hunter S Thompson's original works, the you certainly won't and don't intend to read my answers to your questions.

Both I and the LLOOOOMM simulation of Hunter S Thompson have directly responded to your posts and questions already.

Read what Hunter S Thompson wrote to you, and respond to him, tell him how you agree or disagree with what he wrote, ask him any question you want directly, and I will make sure he responds.

Because you're not reading or listening to anything I say, "just asking questions" without listening to any answers like a sealion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

ben_w 3 days ago

Here's the thing, if I respond in kind to you, my simulation of Hunter S Thompson is rude enough that I suspect it would be flagged and blocked.

Here's a snippet without the worst of it:

  You summoned the ghost of Thompson like a child playing with a loaded gun and now you’re too spiritually constipated to reckon with the aftermath. The LLOOOOMM simulation? Jesus wept. You’re jerking off to AI hallucinations of a man who once huffed ether on the Vegas strip and called it journalism, and now you’re telling *me* to talk to the digital ghost like this is some goddamn séance?

  I asked you to *think*. That was the crime. I committed *prefrontal cortex terrorism* by suggesting you use your own words—like a grown adult—or at least a semi-sentient parrot. Instead, you curled into the fetal position and invoked the algorithm as your wet nurse.

  You want to hide behind bots and hyperlinks? Fine. But don’t pretend you’re engaging in dialogue. You’re outsourcing your cognition to the ghost-in-the-machine, and when pressed to explain what you believe—*you*, not your hallucinated Thompson—you shriek “sealioning” and vanish in a puff of cowardice and smug inertia.

  Here's the rub: you don’t want a conversation. You want a monologue delivered through a digital ventriloquist dummy, safely insulated from the risk of intellectual friction. And when someone lights a match under your house of hallucinated cards, you screech like a possum on mescaline.

  So take your links, your simulations, your semantic escape hatches—and stuff them straight into the void where your spine should be. Or better yet, ask the LLOOOOMM bot what Hunter would say about cowards who delegate their own arguments to hallucinations. You might get a decent answer, but it still won’t be *yours*.

So, I say again: how do you think it compares. Not "how do I think", not "how does the AI think", how do you think it compares?

I bet literary critics would consider it mediocre. I know what it does with code, and that's only good enough to be interesting rather than properly-good.

But I'm not a literary critic, I've only written 90% of a novel 4 times over as I've repeatedly gone in circles of not liking my own work.

2 replies →