I would say that the holidays give him occasion to dwell on the dying of the light and to rage against it, but that would give his inner life a poetic grandeur that his TV-poisoned brain simply is incapable of encompassing.

This reads like somebody doing an unkind impression of Bosley Crowther

Would you have asked this question about a Google Images thief in 2010? No, because Google Images in 2010 was incapable of fudging sources and numbers in a convincing way.

You misread my post. I'll rephrase:

If you're in a meeting and spot an obvious genAI image, and you don't immediately wonder, "Did this presenter also use AI to cook up the words and numbers?" then you are undiscerning & setting yourself up to be suckered by a D student in business casual clothes

*sorry: FIVE months ago, not two.

Worth noting for context that Bohacek pleaded guilty on a DUI charge two months ago. Seems likely that he knows his days in politics are numbered, so he's coincidentally rediscovering his moral compass. indianacapitalchronicle.com/2025/06/02/i...

Here's just one example. www.msba.org/site/site/co...

The shortcut-takers are already getting busted for letting their laziness infect the information rather than just the information's window dressing. A viewer that doesn't take this into account when they see a seven-fingered person in the corporate PowerPoint they're viewing is not a smart person.

I guess I don't understand what is unbelievable about my premise. Back in the days of Google Images theft, Google Images thieves didn't have a bullshit machine that helped them invent the text that went with the images. Now they do. Simple.

If that's happening in a high-stakes setting like the law, then you can bet it's happening in stupid (but still consequential) stuff like corporate earnings reports. And a savvy audience will know that it is always wise to distrust someone who uses AI shortcuts.

We are already seeing court cases destroyed because a prosecutor used genAI and it simply made up precedents and court cases to support an argument. It's all packaged in plausible-sounding legalese, so the AI use only got discovered later.

But genAI is an expert at giving its output a veneer of plausibility, even if it is hand-wavey nonsense or (worse) completely invented. So a smart audience, upon ID'ing genAI images in a PowerPoint, will have a good reason to also distrust the rest of the PowerPoint as a slickly packaged fiction.

You're fixating on "quality" (however defined), not on reliability. Before genAI, if I stole bad clip art from Google Images, that might look amateurish, but there would be no reason to suspect that I also stole bad/incorrect info from Google Images unless the info was *obviously* bad/incorrect.

By the same token, if a work presentation is tainted by genAI images, then colleagues/supervisors are obliged to wonder whether the presenter used genAI shortcuts in the text content as well. We're already seeing people doing this in official court filings!

Why disingenuous? This problem is why LLMs have been so uniquely ruinous for academia/education. If a lit prof suspects a student has LLM'd an essay intro, then the entire essay falls under suspicion because AI fingerprints are easier to conceal than e.g. material written using the Cliff's Notes.

This has been "Editorial Assistance in Byword Selection" Friday, please like and subscribe

Also, as "Nazi" has had its edges gradually sanded down through frequent use and proud reclamation by bigoted internet edgelords, "quisling" has a nice bite that only relative novelty can supply.

🤡