This guy made a joke that reads identically to the kinds of things people have been saying without a hint of humour since the ignoble days of Reader’s Digest Condensed Books up to, yes, people saying almost exactly the same thing as he said here and people took him at face value. This is despite knowing that Poe’s Law is a thing.
How terrible.
Generally if people don’t “get” your joke, there’s one of two things likely happening:
Your joke wasn’t funny.
This was a Schrodinger’s Joke: serious until someone says something bad about it after which it becomes “Gosh, all y’all just can’t take a joke!”
You are the OP, you literally removed someone’s tweet from it’s original context (or reposted without fact checking) and presented it here with an entirely different, false context. The fact that it’s being misinterpreted is 100% on you for presenting it inaccurately, not the guy who’s words you misrepresented.
I actually upvoted this before deciding to fact check which took me no more than ten seconds.
2 definitely does happen a lot with conservatives, but I think it’s a stretch to suggest it happened here. The evidence @[email protected] provided seems a little inconclusive to me (I’d really want to see a broader history of satirical comments and/or anti-AI-hype comments prior to this tweet to be the real proof, not an after-the-fact comment which could be taken either way), but on the face of it taking the first tweet seriously is a bit ridiculous. Had they used some self-help book or a piece of genre fiction (even excellent quality genre fiction) it might have become a bit more ambiguous (even then, the idea that someone would sincerely hold out the idea of AI summaries as being equivalent to actually reading a book is a fucking stretch), but using Tolstoy? Someone famous for the quality of his prose? Give me a break. Nobody believes that.
1 is obviously just subjective and meaningless. Personally, had I seen the original tweet without context, I think I would have found it funny as a parody of the AI-hyping techbros. You’re welcome to disagree, but only insofar as you disagree that you personally found it funny. You are not welcome to make a generic sweeping statement that “it was not funny”.
This guy made a joke that reads identically to the kinds of things people have been saying without a hint of humour since the ignoble days of Reader’s Digest Condensed Books up to, yes, people saying almost exactly the same thing as he said here and people took him at face value. This is despite knowing that Poe’s Law is a thing.
How terrible.
Generally if people don’t “get” your joke, there’s one of two things likely happening:
You are the OP, you literally removed someone’s tweet from it’s original context (or reposted without fact checking) and presented it here with an entirely different, false context. The fact that it’s being misinterpreted is 100% on you for presenting it inaccurately, not the guy who’s words you misrepresented.
I actually upvoted this before deciding to fact check which took me no more than ten seconds.
2 definitely does happen a lot with conservatives, but I think it’s a stretch to suggest it happened here. The evidence @[email protected] provided seems a little inconclusive to me (I’d really want to see a broader history of satirical comments and/or anti-AI-hype comments prior to this tweet to be the real proof, not an after-the-fact comment which could be taken either way), but on the face of it taking the first tweet seriously is a bit ridiculous. Had they used some self-help book or a piece of genre fiction (even excellent quality genre fiction) it might have become a bit more ambiguous (even then, the idea that someone would sincerely hold out the idea of AI summaries as being equivalent to actually reading a book is a fucking stretch), but using Tolstoy? Someone famous for the quality of his prose? Give me a break. Nobody believes that.
1 is obviously just subjective and meaningless. Personally, had I seen the original tweet without context, I think I would have found it funny as a parody of the AI-hyping techbros. You’re welcome to disagree, but only insofar as you disagree that you personally found it funny. You are not welcome to make a generic sweeping statement that “it was not funny”.
Ho ho ho, you fell for my little trap by believing the words I wrote!