Sorry, what jargon is that? I may be able to fix it with your help. I'm not in the USA and don't follow US politics or culture enough to be up to 2025 in jargon.
Or maybe we should give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume he's unhappy with both radical ends of the spectrum, which would be a refreshing take in 2025 to be honest.
I don't really agree with the general argument, though. I don't think painting this as an "AI Slop" issue is fair. Online communities are quicker (and quieter!) when dismissing obvious AI Slop than when dismissing legitimate discourse that looks like AI, or was cleaned-up with AI, or even it just uses Em––Dashes. Perhaps the excusable usage is marking content as machine-translated, which of course causes other disadvantages for the poster. But of course that's just one point of view and communities I don’t go to might be 100% different!
Doesn't matter when the word was created, in the same way furries use ":3" to signal they're a furry, people now use "woke" as a pejorative to signify that they're a member of the "alt-right". I'd suggest avoiding that word unless that's the group membership you want to be advertising.
That is false. Woke liberals and their insane ideas are widely despised by people from all over the political map.
Paul Graham has observed that "wokeness is in retreat".
Now, some alt right are acting like wokeness is not in retreat, and constitutes some kind of large and growing threat, so that aligning against it is a major priority.
However, that doesn't mean everyone who uses the word is partaking in an alt right anti-woke frenzy.
The author of the submitted paper writes that by positing that someone's post may have been AI generated, or could as well have been, you're oppressing disadvantaged groups, helping to keep them out of joining the knowledge worker class.
I.e. implying you should probably stop doing that, in the name of social justice.
That is absurdly woke, by any objective measure. The word woke is being used accurately.
By the way, for most people, it should be a compliment to have their writing compared to AI, because "AI could have written that" means that it the writing has good grammar and spelling, and usually makes some kind of coherent point.
I happen like the above article by Graham; it's very observant. I feel that he nails almost everything in it, and handles the subject in an different way from other authors.
The prudence of discussing everything in a cultural vacuum comes with the implication of irrelevance to the cultural climate, which could hardly be further from the truth in this case.
