So is my comment.

Yes, it does need to be said. Many people will read this article and miss the satire, which is, in part, the intent of sophisticated satire. The point is that it is outlandish and foolish and ridiculous and yet still resembles some serious discourse that real people engage in. So much so that some onlookers can't tell the difference. That proves the satirist's thesis: the real world is full of ridiculous people making ridiculous arguments and they can't even see themselves or their arguments for what they are.

I know real life people who write essays with claims as outlandish as "software engineering is an ableist field" and are dead serious. But that assertion belongs just as well in a satire piece. It can be very hard to tell if you don't have prior context for the author.

Among others, the voices on the internet include:

* some sincere people with very extreme takes,

* some trolls that masquerade as the above, to bully others over their credulousness and lack of guile, which is distinct from sarcasm,

* some trolls that insincerely speak anything that earns engagement,

* and more and more bots that mimic the above

So sadly, the answer to your question is generally yes.

> Honest question : does it need to be said ?

Yes. There are literally people who believe any thinking done without AI is Luddite and subpar.

These are not, in my experience, people who have done any great thinking in their lives. They do tend to tweet a lot.

When I started reading it I thought for far too long that this person is actually stupi^H^H^H^H^H serious. So writing that it is satire is useful for people that do not read enough of the text, and just jump into the comments :) Also, this type of behavior has little to do with the neurodivergent spectrum, if anything it touches personality types, maybe maybe some trauma or addiction, unlikely to be caused by anything in the affective space (episodes would be too short) or psychosis space.

> Honest question : does it need to be said ?

At the current time I'm writing this, all other top-level comments are engaging with the article as if it were sincere. So, yes.

When it's this poorly executed, yes it needs to be said.

I was going back and forth on whether it was for far longer than I should have been.

I think sometimes it is but only if the humor relies on a tone.

When it’s satire I think the main blocker of recognition is if you have an emotional reaction first.

As an example, if you are a diehard AI influencer or something you might miss the joke entirely because of the severity of your initial negative reaction.

Just my two cents. Glad I could contribute to completely beating the humor out of this post :)

It does, but unfortunately, this is in-crowd communication -- it's too high brow to hit anyone that needs to read it. But I enjoyed it, and I'm sure it was cathartic to write

Yes because Poe’s Law has never been more true than the current era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

I regularly get reddit comments downvoted by people who don't recognize it's obviously satire.

Sometimes somebody else comments "why is this getting downvoted, it's satire", and that stops or reverses the influx of downvotes.

Humor died few years ago after series of increasingly more improbable events happening. "USA voted pedophile that bankrupted 3 casinos into second term" was stuff out of Onion decade ago, so some researcher walking into job interview with ChatGPT doesn't even move a needle on satire scale.

do LLMs dream of electric shhhheeep

> Is humor that hard to grasp on the internet ?

Yes. Humor is very hard to grasp via text, especially sarcastic humor, because in person we use voice and body language to signal that something is meant as a joke.

On this site? Yes it does, and even then we have people missing the point in the comments.

As someone on the spectrum, I can assure you that being on the spectrum is not an obstacle for understanding this kind of humor.

In fact, is the neurotypicals who struggle getting it because they rely on nonverbal cues (like a sarcastic tone of voice), which is missing in text, to detect humor.

Deadpan, dry humor is generally more amenable to the autistic mind, because it doesn't have what we consider noise.

If someone needs a laugh track to tell that something is a joke, then either it's a bad joke that wouldn't be made any better with a laugh track, or the problem exists between keyboard and chair.

That's what makes it good satire.

But if you honestly think that someone applying for a postdoc can't explain what their research is about, it's on you.

That’s what makes it good satire.

Put another way: if all that you're doing is prompting the AI and giving me the result then I have no use for you. If you're not contributing insight, understanding, experience, or creativity then it's far cheaper for me to prompt the AI myself.

I didn't mean it in the literal sense more like the AI is telling you do this do this do this do that and you relaying what happened and what you saw over text.

Replace science with software development and this just reads like half of HN right now.

despite being satire this is no joke, this is what we are headed into if we dont stop the decline.

I think this thread is a good indicator of llm bots vs human accounts on HN. The bots couldn't identify satire.

I don't have a problem using AI.

I also acknowledge, when doing so, how I use it.

But, literally typing in a prompt and then massaging its output and then claiming ownership of its plan? Yeah, no.

It doesn't matter if the original article is supposed to be satire. I've been using AI to do some coding, I've been using it to help me plan a much larger project. It's a tool, and it's useful; but I am in control of the project, not letting the AI control me.

Meanwhile in my day job, I've had multiple coworkers pump shit into AI and regurgitate the answer without critical thought. They are letting it make decisions for them without validating it first even.

It's not really satire if we're already dealing with this attitude.