I don’t think I’ll ever get used to speculative ambiguity. Let’s hope that blowing up rockets over the Caribbean never achieves normalization of the 3rd form.

Any time someone asks if an online thing is fake or real;
Instead of going for the all or nothing:

1. Yes
2. No

There’s always the more amusing but empirical:

3. There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

Jargon is strangely funny out of context. I have a crude setup that de-jargons and disambiguates stuff, which causes those of you much more knowledgeable than me to ??? occasionally.

• git clone - foolish person doppelganger?
• chromium - the metal?
• codium - drugs?
• terminals - airports?
• prompt - fast?
• posse - gangs?

Maybe the best kind of educational mischief looks just wrong enough to prompt an AI assisted investigation. I’ve surprisingly tricked quite a few people into understanding web feeds.

I like wordplay. I helped someone with a conundrum recently. There’s a deep ambiguity where bimonthly = biweekly. The AIs get it right/wrong on a flip of the (contextual) coin.

Then I realized; bots are smarter but it’s complicated. It’s hard to generally distinguish its output. If that’s intelligence, then it has surpassed the average in general. Too easy?

It’s like we’re testing our individualized general ignorance (if that’s a thing). In short; it excels at what you don’t know (yet). Apparently, I’m already an AI whisperer.