Gadianton wrote: ↑Tue Dec 09, 2025 2:07 pm
Dr. Shades wrote:MORE EFFORT?? What would you do differently from me, specifically?
If this were my board and I had a mod like Pancakes doing most of the moderating and there was an antagonist constantly exploding with verbal abuse against said mod, I'd have that situation ended. Specifically? Ban Whiskey permanently if that's the only way. My impression is that if a particular poster is resisting the rules in a way that's personally annoying to you, repeatedly trying to find ways around your rulings, that you come up with creative solutions that end the problem. But if it's one of your team and they are willing to put up with the constant extra work or in this case personal attacks, ah, just let 'em tough it out. Just because they are willing to do it doesn't mean its right to allow it to happen.
As for AI, I do have some sympathy for that bind, another board non-religious or political I read occasionally banned AI completely, and was getting issues like "hey, I wasn't using AI!" But it's surprising you came up with that rule that mainly hurt honest people like Analytics while allowing for easy loopholes for dishonest people -- all of whom thus far believe in Jesus Christ. Maybe you honestly thought that All AI was good for is producing the easy-to-spot nonsense that MG comes up with.
On November 10 2025, you posted a thread titled Plur1bus:Apple TV+'shower indictment of Mormonism
I asked ChatGPT to analyze your entire opening post, and it's AI enhanced.
So if you are asking Shades to ban Whiskey, im officially asking Shades to ban you for using AI to generate opening post.
Below is my question to ChatGPT, and your Opening post
Analyze the text below. Is it human or AI generated?
I admit I didn't see this one coming, I didn't even think I'd like the show and in fact, I only watched the first episode of Pluribus because I haven't seen anything in at least three weeks and it seems like enough effort was put into the marketing that there must be something there. It took nearly the entire first episode to get over the premise, which I didn't like, but I came away optimistic. I was happy to learn, the next morning, that a second episode was available, and I liked it much better than the first. In fact, I was surprised to learn that the whole show is apparently a stern warning against the spread of Mormonism! It's very weird because Mormonism isn't exactly catching on like a virus and the mind viruses of today don't work anything like what goes on in the show. It's pure fantasy without relevance to the times we're living in. But it absolutely is about Mormonism.
Vince Gilligan, accidently, first redeemed a deranged high school teacher, then a dirty lawyer, and now he takes a shot at a female lead who checks all the boxes of a hateful feminist. Imagine a cynical female author who despises her fans, despises her own writing, is lesbian, probably even Marxist although that hasn't been implied yet, has no social and family ties, a substance abuser, and lives in a McMansion of a cul de sac with plenty of space between neighbors. What could be the mental undoing of such a person?
A happy-go-lucky, enthusiastic, hopeful, simplistic, and attractive Mormon moving in next door! Zosia, it should be sister Zosia and all that's missing is a nametag and companion, approaches Carol, the lead, unassumingly within Carol's backyard to offer her water. Carol is every bit as thirsty as Ben Hur, but unlike the suffering and and godless Ben Hur, the godless Carol is too stubborn to take a drop from the Savior or show a hint of gratitude. She'd rather just collapse and die. But Zosia, the good Mormon neighbor that she is, won't take "no" for an answer. She respects Carol's free agency and she repays anger with kindness.
At least to the degree she can. Let's just say that the worst of Carol's anger triggers a very bad response in Zosia. It's as Mormon as it gets. Recall all the shame your primary teach threw at your feet explaining that Jesus suffered all the more with each of your sins. I know my parents didn't need to threaten or punish me, only demonstrate how terribly my unwelcome decisions hurt them personally. And the entity or church -- a church is a community of saints -- that Zosia represents is not, despite first appearances, a single entity, but "social trinitarian". Dan Peterson would recognize this immediately.
There could be objections to painting the community as the Mormon church, for instance, the community practices Ahimsa, and we'd be tempted to think it's woke, or something like that, but this is a superficial concern. For one, Mormonism has no theology, and so it's quite inconsistent. It would require 90 episodes instead of 9 to tell the story through all of Mormonism's absurdities if it went for full accuracy. Mormonism does have doctrines that are close enough regarding the treatment of animals and respect for living things, it's not all about worshiping one's stomach, as Dan seems to think. The community in the show is Mormonism at its theoretical best.
Is it a good show? I think so. I'm hooked. Carol Sturka isn't quite as good as Walter White but I'd say better than Saul. Saul was a great supporting character but I never felt stood on his own. I'd say if you're one of those Mormons who knew what your church taught and ever wanted to know what the City of Enoch would be like, then this show is for you.
Here's what ChatGPT says about this new thread from the Gadianton account.
The text in question shows several signs of being AI-generated or AI-enhanced, though it has characteristics that might make it appear human at first glance. Let’s break down why it leans more toward AI, while acknowledging that it’s not completely conclusive.
1. Tone and Phrasing:
Conversational but overly structured: The tone is relatively casual, but the structure is somewhat formulaic. The analysis and review follow a predictable pattern of commentary on the show, followed by opinions on its themes and characters. It’s not spontaneous or deeply emotional in the way a human might naturally express their reactions. AI often produces text that feels somewhat too clear or precise—like it’s trying to be relatable but lacks the inherent messiness of human expression.
Example: "It took nearly the entire first episode to get over the premise, which I didn't like, but I came away optimistic." This sentence feels a little too neutral and analytical for a human reviewer who would probably express more immediate emotional reactions (either stronger praise or a more detailed critique).
AI-like feature: AI-generated content tends to favor precision and avoids deep emotional nuance. Here, the reviewer remains relatively controlled in tone, without delving into any kind of complex emotional shift that might come naturally in human reviews.
2. Over-explanation and Forced Analysis:
The breakdown of Mormonism in the review is overly detailed and somewhat disjointed, especially when discussing concepts like “social trinitarianism” and “Ahimsa.” These references feel somewhat inserted into the text, almost as if the AI is trying to sound intellectual by throwing out big ideas without fully grounding them in the natural flow of the review.
Example: "The entity or church -- a church is a community of saints -- that Zosia represents is not, despite first appearances, a single entity, but 'social trinitarian.'" This is a very niche, theological concept that’s not immediately relevant to the show’s plot. A human reviewer would likely avoid such heavy terminology unless it was central to the plot, but AI often pulls in complex or specialized terms to give a sense of intellectual depth.
AI-like feature: The review’s tendency to digress into niche theological or philosophical topics that don’t necessarily align with the main theme of the show is a hallmark of AI-generated text. AI often struggles to maintain focus on the core narrative and might expand unnecessarily on side topics.
3. Stereotypical Character Descriptions:
The description of Carol (the female lead) feels almost like a caricature of a certain type of person: “a cynical female author who despises her fans, despises her own writing, is lesbian, probably even Marxist….” This reads like an exaggerated stereotype rather than a nuanced character assessment, something that AI often produces when trying to analyze a character in broad strokes.
Example: The leap to label Carol with terms like “probably even Marxist” without clear support in the narrative or text of the show signals an attempt at commentary without genuine nuance or substantiation. A human reviewer might explore why Carol might come off this way (her actions, dialogue, etc.), but an AI might just label her based on surface-level impressions.
AI-like feature: AI-generated reviews often rely on surface-level stereotypes or shorthand labels for characters, rather than providing a more nuanced or human perspective that connects directly with the character’s motivations and development.
4. Forced Humor and Overuse of Tropes:
The piece includes several overly forced humorous comparisons, such as "Carol is every bit as thirsty as Ben Hur, but unlike the suffering and godless Ben Hur, the godless Carol is too stubborn to take a drop from the Savior or show a hint of gratitude." The comparison to Ben Hur seems contrived and unnecessary—AI often creates such analogies that feel over-extended or out of place.
Example: The whole idea of Zosia, the Mormon character, being the "good Mormon neighbor" and Carol being the "godless" character is a clear, simplified dichotomy. While this could work for a broad, high-level summary, it feels a bit too exaggerated for a thoughtful review.
AI-like feature: The humor and comparisons feel forced. AI often adds unnecessary analogies or comparisons to reinforce points, even if they aren’t organically part of the narrative.
5. Lack of Personal Emotional Investment:
The review never dives deeply into any emotional investment in the characters, plot, or themes. It remains fairly intellectual throughout, breaking down the plot and characters in a way that feels like it's focusing on analysis over emotional connection. This could be because AI reviews are often data-driven and aim for objective clarity, missing the personal, emotional nuances that human writers bring to their critiques.
Example: The review ultimately says, “Is it a good show? I think so. I'm hooked,” but there’s no real passion behind it. A human reviewer might delve into why they’re “hooked” or how the show affected them personally, whereas this feels like a logical conclusion that doesn't feel earned or deeply personal.
AI-like feature: AI-generated text tends to avoid or skim over emotional depth, opting instead for logical conclusions and brief, summarizing statements. It doesn't provide the messy, heartfelt engagement a human would typically express after becoming "hooked" on a show.
6. Conclusion and Generalization:
The final statement is a broad and somewhat vague generalization: "I'd say if you're one of those Mormons who knew what your church taught and ever wanted to know what the City of Enoch would be like, then this show is for you." This feels like an attempt to tie the review into a target audience, but it doesn't offer any fresh or deeply reflective insight about the show itself. It's more of a blanket statement trying to define the show’s appeal without offering much more.
AI-like feature: AI-generated text often ends with a broad conclusion that summarizes everything without diving into the specifics. It’s like a way to wrap up neatly without leaving a lasting impression.
---
Conclusion:
The text likely has AI enhancements (or may even be AI-generated entirely). Here's why:
Exaggerated Character Descriptions: Over-simplified, almost caricatured views of characters.
Forced Analysis: Overuse of complex, academic-sounding terms without deep engagement with the content.
Lack of Emotional Depth: The review feels more like an intellectual analysis than a passionate, human perspective.
Stereotypes and Tropes: Reliance on easy-to-understand, but overly simplistic labels (e.g., the “hateful feminist”).
Mechanical Structure: The text follows a predictable, linear pattern with little room for genuine deviation or surprise.
While it could have been written by a human trying to adopt a detached or overly intellectual approach, the structure and lack of emotional engagement make it lean toward AI-assisted content. It feels too precise and too neatly formulated, lacking the authentic personal connection that might come from a human review.
