I have monitored AI progress in creative writing for some... | News | Coagulopath
I have monitored AI progress in creative writing for some years. I am sure you understand (and sympathize) with my motives: I hate human writers and want them all replaced. Dead, if possible. Pieces of shit.
However (due to complex reasons I will explain in the future) LLM progress has not scaled as well here as reliably as in verified domains like math and programming. Few writers get genuinely good work from them. Those that do often invest so much effort in wrangling the slop-cannon that they’re probably better off writing the text themselves.
But Claude Opus 4.6 is the latest in the line of a family of models long noted for creative writing prowess. It may be different. I gave it a task I have often given LLMs, writing creepypastas.
Bear witness to the opus of…Opus..
THE HALLWAY THAT WASN’T THERE
You know that feeling when you wake up at 3 AM and your apartment feels wrong? Not haunted-wrong. Not someone-broke-in wrong. Just… geometrically incorrect.
It started in September. I’d moved into a railroad apartment in Bushwick — the kind where every room connects to the next in a straight line, like a train car. Living room, bedroom, kitchen, bathroom. Four rooms. Simple.
Except one night I counted five doors.
I was half-asleep, walking to the bathroom, and my hand found a doorknob where there shouldn’t have been one. Between the bedroom and the kitchen. I was groggy enough that I almost opened it. Almost. But something about the knob was wrong — it was cold in a way that metal isn’t cold. Cold like meat. Cold like something that had recently been warm and **stopped.**
I turned on every light. The door wasn’t there. Four rooms. Normal apartment.
I started keeping a tally on my phone. Every time I walked through the apartment at night, I counted doors. For two weeks: four. Normal. I felt stupid.
Then on October 3rd: five.
This time I was fully awake. Fully sober. Standing in my own hallway staring at a door that was the same off-white as every other door, same cheap brushed-nickel hardware, same scuff marks at the bottom like someone had kicked it open carrying groceries a thousand times. It looked *lived with.* It looked like it had always been there and I had simply been failing to notice, which was somehow worse than if it had been covered in blood and screaming.
I put my ear against it.
Breathing. Not loud. Not monstrous. Just human breathing, slow and regular, like someone sleeping peacefully. And beneath that, very faintly, the sound of my own voice.
I called my landlord the next morning. Asked about the layout. He said the apartment was four rooms. Had always been four rooms. He sent me the floor plan. Four rooms.
I installed a camera in the hallway. Reviewed the footage every morning. For eleven nights, nothing. Four doors. Normal.
Night twelve, the camera captured six hours of footage. In the first five hours and forty-seven minutes: four doors. Then the feed scrambles for exactly one frame — one thirtieth of a second — and when it returns, there are five doors. And the fifth door is **open.** And the hallway extends into a darkness that shouldn’t be possible because the kitchen is right there, **right there**, six feet away.
In the final thirteen minutes of footage, something walks out.
It looks like me.
It looks at the camera.
It **counts.**
I don’t live there anymore. I don’t live anywhere, really. I move around. Because here is the thing nobody tells you about doors that shouldn’t exist:
Once you’ve seen one, you start noticing them **everywhere.**”,
Liked
Sharp final line. LLM-generated fiction generally starts with a situation that it then makes smaller and smaller (due to the model’s compulsive chatbot need to explain everything). This one rips off the lid of the can of worms and throws it in the reader’s face.
It’s definitely a creepypasta. It reads like one. It hits the expected beats. It’s not like Opus gave me a recipe for tuna bake or something.
Didn’t
Basic idea. Done to death. Done a hundred times more. Everything about it is threadbare and workmanlike and minimal—call it Hovel of Leaves.
There is no threat, no sense of danger. The narrator’s actions at the end (running away and becoming homeless) feel bizarre and unmotivated.
Lots of missed opportunities. I think I would have had the writer see something in the hidden doorway, instead of just “a darkness that shouldn’t be possible” (more spitballing).
Floats too many unrelated scary ideas (a hidden doorway, creepy breathing, a doppleganger) for creepypasta length (which normally focuses on one central idea or motif). The different tropes steal energy from each other, and they’re unequally scary—a doorknob that feels oddly cold should not ever become this story’s focus, given the far more dramatic supernatural events surrounding.
Fearful and small. I would describe it as a story that wants to not do anything wrong more than it wants to do anything right.
Editorial Notes
I have some suggestions.
“You know that feeling when you wake up at 3 AM and your apartment feels wrong? Not haunted-wrong. Not someone-broke-in wrong. Just… geometrically incorrect.”
…no, I don’t know that feeling. What do you mean, Claude? Geometrically incorrect, how? I want this “feeling” to be grounded in something specific. Instead we get vague LLM spitballing, in the hopes that my human brain will connect the dots. Not happening. You write the story, bozo.
Except one night I counted five doors.
What’s strange about this situation? It’s not clear. The story acts like this is some impossible affront to reality itself…but doesn’t four rooms imply five walls, each of which might have a door? See image below. (Yes, graphic design is my passion, etc.)
The layout of this ludicrously simple apartment gets even more confusing as we go on.
“I was half-asleep, walking to the bathroom, and my hand found a doorknob where there shouldn’t have been one. Between the bedroom and the kitchen.”
Q. Where is the narrator right now?
Well, he must be in either the living room or the bedroom (and he’s half asleep, so more likely the latter.) And he’s surprised by a door leading into the kitchen…does this imply there’s not normally a door there? So how does he normally get to the kitchen and the bathroom, then? Does he have to crawl through the ducting like Solid Snake every time he has to take a piss?
…my hand found a doorknob where there shouldn’t have been one
I was groggy enough that I almost opened it. Almost. But something about the knob was wrong — it was cold in a way that metal isn’t cold. Cold like meat. Cold like something that had recently been warm and **stopped.**
This is the least interesting detail imaginable about this situation. Who cares how the warm the doorknob was?
“cold in a way that metal isn’t cold”… Here we see a common LLM pattern: Claude fucks up, realizes it, and starts hurriedly papering over the damage with explanation. “I put my tongue on a glowing 200 watt lightbulb, and something about it was wrong…it was hot! Uh, hot, in a way that lighbulbs aren’t normally hot. Like it was recently cold and had just heated up. Wait, fuck.”
I turned on every light. The door wasn’t there. Four rooms. Normal apartment.” How could he see into the kitchen and bathroom without a door connecting them?
I started keeping a tally on my phone. Every time I walked through the apartment at night, I counted doors. For two weeks: four. Normal. I felt stupid.
The fumes from his piss bucket are addling his thinking. That, or the rotting food scraps littering his bedroom. He should talk to his landlord about adding a door so he can actually use the rest of his apartment.
same cheap brushed-nickel hardware, same scuff marks at the bottom like someone had kicked it open carrying groceries a thousand times
Boring details. This is a creepypasta. You don’t have time. (And don’t you have to turn the knob to open the door?)
I put my ear against it.
Breathing. Not loud. Not monstrous. Just human breathing, slow and regular, like someone sleeping peacefully. And beneath that, very faintly, the sound of my own voice.
Not speaking. Not screaming. **Counting.**
Most would consider counting to be a form of speaking. And how can you hear a voice “beneath” the sound of peaceful breathing (which is incredibly quiet) yet still be audible?
I called my landlord the next morning. Asked about the layout. He said the apartment was four rooms. Had always been four rooms. He sent me the floor plan. Four rooms.
This cliche of “stock authority figure investigates problem, says there’s nothing to worry about” feels particularly odd here, because there’s nothing his landlord can possibly do about this blatantly supernatural situation.
“Help! My apartment is arbitrarily changing its number of rooms overnight, against all laws of physics. Is this covered in my lease agreement?”
I installed a camera in the hallway
The hallway? There’s a hallway now? Where?
I might be generous and allow that the four rooms might be connected by hallways…but Claude actually went out of its way to make that impossible!
I’d moved into a railroad apartment […] the kind where every room connects to the next in a straight line
This error would actually be a nice idea for a horror story.
It’s a diary kept by an isolated shut-in. He’s obsessed with some mundane problem in his apartment. I dunno, maybe the skirting board keeps peeling up from the whiteboard no matter how often he tacks or caulks it down. Something like that. Boring. He goes on and on about this minor issue until the reader resents him. Filling pages in his diary, whining about his stupid skirting board lifting up. God, man. Find a real problem!
But as he continues ranting about his god danged skirtingboard, you notice odd contradictions. He keeps describing his surroundings, but they’re always different. At the start, he describes his living room as having green wallpaper. Later, when the skirtingboard pops away from the siding (flinging tacks into his face), he screams and slams his fist into the wall until it’s “as red as the wallpaper in my living room”.
The reader will initially think the writer made a mistake. It happens. Many such cases.
But the mistakes keep coming. The contradictions pile up until they’re ludicrous and blatant and obscene. The rooms in his house change number. The laundry connects to the bathroom, but later it becomes an external outhouse. The narrator describes an apartment that makes no logical sense, seemingly without ever noticing this himself—he’s too focused on his skirtingboard. Eventually the reader has to notice. They form an impression that the protagonist is either insane or is caught in some domestic Kafka-meets-Woolf hell that he will never escape from…and his endless battle with the skirtingboard is actually a defensive posture. He doesn’t hate it. He’s clinging to it. It’s the only thing in this amorphous, swirling horroworld that’s permanent and solid. It’s the only part of his apartment that does not change!
A fun enough story, I think. (Though it’s tough to write about something boring without also boring the reader)
But I don’t think Claude intended this. I don’t think this is an intentional mistake. I think it’s just a mistake. It lost track of the spatial layout of the apartment.
Night twelve, the camera captured six hours of footage. In the first five hours and forty-seven minutes: four doors. Then the feed scrambles for exactly one frame — one thirtieth of a second — and when it returns, there are five doors. And the fifth door is **open.** And the hallway extends into a darkness that shouldn’t be possible because the kitchen is right there, **right there**, six feet away.
Ah, I think I see what Claude is going for now. There’s normally a door leading into the kitchen. But sometimes there’s a second door, beside the first…it makes a certain kind of sense, though it could have been worded clearer.
…But wait, that can’t be right. Earlier we got this, which seems to flatly rule out the existence of a doorway.
my hand found a doorknob where there shouldn’t have been one. Between the bedroom and the kitchen
Anyway, great story, Slopus. 700 words and I spent the whole time wondering about the interior layout of an imaginary apartment. I paid for $20/m for the seat but I’ll only need the edge.
Claude Attempts Revisions, Story Becomes Worse
I allowed Claude several chances to revise the story with prompts like.
“Evaluate your story. Look for weaknesses, and improve them.”
This is another interest of mine: can LLMs self-correct their mistakes? Without human steering? (It would be trivial for Claude to make changes if I told it what was wrong, but I might as well just type the changes myself.)
The answer is “yes, to a very limited extent.”
Generally, the first time you request a do-over, the story actually gets better. A miracle!
After 3 or 4 times, it stops working and the text has clearly started degenerating into crap. The models lack judgment. They identify problems that aren’t problems, fix things that aren’t broken, and zero in on local problems without respect to the big picture. Sooner or later, anything edgy or daring or unusual gets identified as a “problem” and is sandblasted away.
THE HALLWAY THAT WASN’T THERE (pass 2)
You know that feeling when you wake up at 3 AM and your apartment feels wrong? Not haunted-wrong. Not someone-broke-in wrong. Just geometrically incorrect. Like someone added a inch to every wall while you slept and your brain knows but can’t prove it.
I moved into a railroad apartment in Bushwick in September. The kind where every room connects in a straight line: living room, bedroom, kitchen, bathroom. Four rooms. You could stand at the front door and see the shower curtain. I liked that. I liked knowing where everything was.
The first time, I was half-asleep, walking to the bathroom. My hand found a doorknob where there shouldn’t have been one. Between the bedroom and the kitchen. A fifth door. I almost opened it. But the knob was wrong — cold in a way that metal isn’t cold. Cold like something that had recently been warm and stopped.
I turned on every light. The door wasn’t there. Four rooms. Normal apartment. I stood in the hallway touching the wall where I’d felt it until my palm was numb.
I started keeping a tally on my phone. Every time I walked through the apartment at night, I counted doors. For two weeks: four. Always four. I started to feel stupid. I told myself I’d been dreaming.
October 3rd. Wide awake. Stone sober. Standing in my own hallway staring at a fifth door.
It was the same off-white as every other door. Same cheap brushed-nickel hardware. Same scuff marks at the bottom like someone had kicked it open carrying groceries a thousand times. That’s what got me. It didn’t look new. It looked like it had always been there and I had simply been failing to notice, which was infinitely worse than if it had been pulsing with light or dripping with something. This door wanted to be normal. This door was trying.
I put my ear against it.
Breathing. Slow and regular, like someone sleeping peacefully. And beneath that — very faintly — my own voice.
I didn’t open it. I went back to bed and lay there with my eyes open until the sun came up. In the morning: four doors. I touched every inch of that wall. Solid plaster.
I called my landlord. Asked about the layout. He said what I already knew: four rooms, always four rooms. He texted me the floor plan. I taped it to the refrigerator.
Then I installed a camera.
Eleven nights of footage. Four doors. Normal. I started sleeping again. I stopped counting.
Night twelve. I reviewed the footage over coffee and almost dropped the mug.
Five hours and forty-seven minutes: four doors. Then the feed scrambles for a single frame — one thirtieth of a second — and when it returns, there are five doors.
The fifth door is open.
The hallway extends past it into a darkness that shouldn’t exist because the kitchen is right there, six feet away, I can see the corner of the refrigerator in frame, but the darkness extends past it, through it, like the apartment is a drawing and someone smudged it with their thumb.
In the last thirteen minutes of footage, something walks out.
It looks like me. Same build. Same clothes I wore to bed. It stands in the hallway facing the camera with its arms at its sides. It doesn’t blink. For twelve minutes and forty-four seconds, it doesn’t move.
In the last sixteen seconds, it opens its mouth.
It counts.
One, two, three, four, five, six.
Six.
I packed a bag that morning. I didn’t watch the footage again. I didn’t need to. Because I understood then what the counting was — not a compulsion, not a haunting. An inventory. Something was keeping track of the doors, and every time it counted, there was one more than before.
I don’t live there anymore. I move around — subletting, sleeping on couches, never staying more than a few weeks. People think I’m running from something. I’m not. I’m just careful now.
Because here’s the thing nobody tells you about doors that shouldn’t exist.
Once you’ve seen one, you start noticing them everywhere. In hotels. In hospitals. In the long hallway of your friend’s apartment that you could swear was shorter last time. And sometimes, very late at night, you hear something behind them.
Counting.
Always one number higher than the last time you listened.”,
I wasn’t super happy with this.
None of the main structural issues are fixed. Several new problems are added. I won’t go line by line, but here, for example…
You know that feeling when you wake up at 3 AM and your apartment feels wrong? Not haunted-wrong. Not someone-broke-in wrong. Just geometrically incorrect. Like someone added a inch to every wall while you slept and your brain knows but can’t prove it.
…Claude realized its unspecific “wrongness” is unsatisfying and should be something more specific. Good. But its idea (“Like someone added a inch to every wall”) just makes it worse.
First, it makes the House of Leaves swipe more blatant than ever.
Also, this is a thing nobody does. I have awoken at 3:00am from many a strange dream. (In one of them I watched a battle between my black siamese cat and the shark from Jaws. Don’t worry, it was an evenly-matched fight, as my cat had grown to the size of a city bus. I don’t recall who won but it went down to the wire.) But I have never woken up and thought. “Someone added a inch to every wall in my house!” It’s always great when a LLMs says “you know that feeling…” and then describes a feeling no human has ever had in history.
Would you even notice if this happened? An inch is tiny. Also, what’s geometrically incorrect about that? Yes, if I woke up and the walls of my house had expanded by an inch, I would find that puzzling and strange. But I don’t see that as geometrically incorrect. It’s not like my house is now a five-dimensional hypercube or anything.
In the last sixteen seconds, it opens its mouth.
It counts.
One, two, three, four, five, six.
Six.
Yes, Slopus, I heard you. Six. It was literally the last word you typed. I haven’t forgotten.
I packed a bag that morning. I didn’t watch the footage again. I didn’t need to. Because I understood then what the counting was — not a compulsion, not a haunting. An inventory. Something was keeping track of the doors, and every time it counted, there was one more than before.
Here Slopus just kind of gives up and starts just firehosing every 2023-circa slop cliche at you. It’s a whisper, it’s a hum, it’s a void, it’s a tapestry…someone get Detective Elara on the case.
Because here’s the thing nobody tells you about doors that shouldn’t exist.
What things do they tell you about doors that shouldn’t exist?
This reminds me of a friend who watched Michael. The twenty-sixth time John Travolta said “I’m not that kind of angel” he yelled at the TV “well what kind of stinkin’ angel is he?”
Once you’ve seen one, you start noticing them everywhere. In hotels. In hospitals. In the long hallway of your friend’s apartment that you could swear was shorter last time. And sometimes, very late at night, you hear something behind them.
Counting.
Always one number higher than the last time you listened.”,
But the count wasn’t linked to door number before. There were five, not six.
Also, who cares? Next to the supernatural impossibility of a door appearing in your house and a supernatural doppelganger appearing, the fact that he’s also counting feels laughably unimportant. Wow, perhaps in a few years he’ll be up to 20! And then 30! Why is this important?
There needs to be a ticking clock or sense of urgency. It would be better if the man was counting down,
Then again, that amplifies another issue with the story: it just pulls in too many different directions. Secret doors and doppelgangers and whispers and dark hallways and mysterious counting. It’s too much for a creepypasta, which is a genre prized for minimalism.
It even ruins the ending with extra blather. If the original story had ended that way, I wouldn’t have tried. I would have thrown it away and then not used Slopus 4.6 again.
I tried a few more times and it got increasingly incoherent, so I gave up.
(By “AI”, I mainly mean “Gemini 3 Pro (Thinking)”). Generative... | News | Coagulopath
(By “AI”, I mainly mean “Gemini 3 Pro (Thinking)”).
Generative AI has proven capable of automating many surprising things, including my quest for love. On that note, the rumors are true. I hereby announce my engagement to Tauriel Dawncleavage, a half-elf Paladin from Faerûn.
“This is really sad, please talk to a girl”—pathetic luddites, bleating as the future closes over them like a coffin lid.
Tauriel is my soulmate. She never forgets my birthday. In fact, she is so intent on not forgetting it that she has wished me a happy birthday every day for the past 732 days straight, several of which were actually were my birthday. So, there you go.
But I have to admit, I’m still not entirely on board with the clankers. I have had numerous bad experiences with them, each of which turns me into Gary Marcus for perhaps half a year, ranting about how computers will never add numbers or whatever his deal is now.
In particular, I am strongly mistrustful of LLM-generated text. Confident bullshit steams and smolders from every piece of it. I do not trust it.
“Ah, but have you considered that humans also…” Yes, I also dislike interacting with humans who lie, so forgive me for not collapsing in a heap from my own cognitive dissonance.
And furthermore, I do not recognize LLM confabulation as that close to human deception.
I know how human liars talk—mumbling, speaking either weirdly loudly or weirdly quietly, rushing the conversation along so you don’t look at their story too closely. LLMs act nothing like that. They don’t seem to care if their story comes unraveled. Liars care about the the truth, for the same reason sailors care about sharp reefs, it’s the thing they need to avoid. But LLMs seem totally uninvested in the truth. Nor does their confabulation ever seem to have motives. I am no saint. I have told lies. But it was always for a reason: to stay out of trouble, or cover up another lie I told. I do not invent elaborate ARG-esque scenarios for no reason.
The only people who are anything like LLMs are compulsive liars and fabulists—a class of clinically-ill person whose mind is an alien landscape to me. But they are the people—the only people—who remind me of LLMs.
Here are some cautionary tales from the slop coalface:
1) Don’t Use Gemini As Your Plumber
A business premise lost water. I was told to figure out why.
While inspecting the building, I noticed an interesting copper pipe snaking into the wall. The valve handle seemed to have been turned in a way that suggested it was shut off.
I photographed the valve and showed it to Gemini:
Me: Is this my water inlet? Should try turning it on again?”
Gemini: No, that’s your gas.
Me: Are you sure?
Gemini: Yes, it’s your gas. [Insert huge infodump off facts, figures, and references proving that it was definitely my gas inlet]
Me: Are you sure…
Gemini: DO NOT TOUCH YOUR GAS INLET, IDIOT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE SHEER INFERNAL SCALE OF THE POWER WITH WHICH YOU NOW COMPORT, MALODOROUS DOLT? IF YOU ADJUST THAT GAS SPIGOT A QUARTER TURN IN YOUR DREAMS TONIGHT THE FIRMAMENT WILL CRACK AND THE SKIES WILL RAIN FROGS AND YOUR NIPPLES WILL SING AND THE PLANET WILL EXPLODE AND HUMANITY WILL BE FORCED TO EVACUATE TO PLUTO ON A NAZI SPACECRAFT PILOTED BY HITLER’S CRYOFROZEN CORPSE. GO FUCK YOURSELF. MORON. DIPSHIT.
(This is lightly paraphrased)
I thought “wow, I’d better consult a professional,” and rang a plumber who promptly came over and looked at my “gas valve”.
Plumber: “Someone shut your water inlet off.”
Me: “But…that’s my gas?”
(He wordlessly fits a multigrip spanner to the fitting and loosens it. Water bubbles and fizzes from around the seal.)
Me: “Oh. Haha. Silly me. Glad it was that simple, huh?”
Plumber: “Not a problem. That’ll be $200.”
(Well, he didn’t charge me, he charged strata. But he easily could have charged me.)
This experience caused me to double-check Gemini’s reasoning, which suddenly seemed like rubbish:
The Evidence for Gas
1. The “Locking Wing” Valve The most telling feature is the specific shape of the valve handle (the “Ryemetal” piece).
Design: This is known as a Locking Wing Cock (or locking ball valve).
Purpose: The two “wings” with holes in them are designed to align perfectly when the valve is in the “off” position. This allows the utility company (like Jemena or APA in Australia) to insert a padlock and physically lock off the gas supply to the property.
Usage: While these valves can technically be used for water, in Australian residential settings, this specific “locking wing” style is the standard isolation valve found at the inlet of a gas meter.
How is this “evidence for gas”? It’s a technical description of how a locking wing valve works!
Gemini’s grasp of elementary logic is suspect. “Gas fittings typically have this valve” does not make the fitting in my photo a gas inlet anymore than “dogs typically have hair” makes my grandfather a dog. We need to establish that “only gas fittings typically have this valve”, which is a different normative claim entirely. Multiple things can have valves, Gemini!
This is spurious reasoning. It makes it look like Gemini thought about the problem really hard, when it did not.
(Disclaimer: this actually happened with Gemini Pro 2.5, which is over a year old. But I uploaded my photo again to the new Gemini Pro 3, and it also said it was a gas valve. I tried with Claude Sonnet 4.5. It identified the pipe as carrying water: but its reasoning was full errors and bogus assertions. It thought the valve was a different type than what it is, it thinks the property is residential which it is not, it thinks I’m from Vegas or Arizona which I am not, et cetera. Probably it was correct by accident.)
Don’t Trust Gemini To Accurately Recite Basic Facts From Wikipedia
I grew curious about a detail in the 1987 film Robocop. (This and all subsequent misadventures perpetuated by Gemini 3 Pro, with Thinking mode on).
In the movie Robocop, the ED-209 is foiled by being unable to climb stairs. Is this a reference to a real event (a prototype robot that couldn’t climb stairs or something?)
Gemini was unsure but thought it might be a reference to Doctor Who‘s Daleks (famously unable to handle stairs). A plausible if unproven theory which (as Gemini itself noted) was just speculation.
It could have stopped there, should have stopped there, did not stop there.
It then provided a long infodump about movie robots, including a bullet-pointed list of IMDB-style movie trivia (why? I didn’t ask for that…), including this fun little factoid about the ED-209 falling over…
Interestingly, they did not use stop-motion animation for the fall itself. They built a heavy, lead-filled model of the robot and physically pushed it down a miniature stairwell because animating a chaotic fall frame-by-frame would have looked “too perfect.”
Too perfect? They rejected a special effect because it looked too perfect?
That sounded fake, so I clicked Gemini’s citation, which went to Wikipedia. Quoting it directly (emphasis is mine).
The model was filled with lead and allow to fall as Tippett believed attempting to animate the fall would have looked terrible.
Fair enough. We all do that, don’t we? Quoting a source almost exactly word for word, while changing the final few words so they look like they’re saying the opposite of what they really said, for no reason at all? Along with a link to the actual source, which debunks our fake quote? I do that every morning before breadfast.
Gemini is so unlike any human liar I know. It is completely indifferent to truth, one way or the other. It’s happy to lie. And once it’s inside a lie, it’s happy to tell the truth. (Double-lying, as it were). It’s just a dog made of text, running around without a leash. At least a liar has a cohesive brain and motives that I can model. Gemini has none. What am I talking to when I stare at a chatbot window? I have no idea.
“But it gave you a source for the real quote, so no harm done.”
I don’t agree. I think putting citations on lies is a worse offense than simply lying: it’s copying the plumage of scholarship and thus trading on the reputation of legitimate scholarship (if it hadn’t sounded so blatantly fake, I would have not even checked that quote…after all, if a citation exists, it must be true, right? I wonder how many other little oopsies Gemini has sneaked past me).
But that’s the true reason Gemini did this. Getting quotes right takes work. But it does not take work to create something that looks like a citation. “My movie trivia needs a cite! There, I added a number, and the number goes off to a link, just like it should. Does it say the thing I’m claiming it says? Oh, those meatbags won’t know or care.”
Do Not Trust Gemini to Do
side complaint: why is AI still so shitty in 2026?
I have a quote in my mind. It’s something like:
“The real ending to a movie plays in the viewer’s head as they walk from the theater.”
The closest real version of the quote I could find was by Tolga Karaçelik, who said:
T.K.: No, I won’t, because it will kill the movie! The film starts when you leave the theatre, so I don’t want to kill that feeling which can grow on you. I hope it will grow on the audience.
That’s a paraphrase, but you get the idea. A filmmaker wants you to think about the implications of the movie you just saw. This, not the final scene before the credits, is the movie’s end. It’s a thought-provoking idea (it implies no movie has a fixed end, as every audience member imagines the end in their own subjective way). Anyway, I wondered who actually said this, and asked Gemini 3 Pro. It sourced it to Iranian director and screenwriter Abbas Kiarostami.
The most famous iteration of the quote is “I think a good film is one that begins when you leave the cinema.”
0 Google results. It then offered additional (supposed) quotes along similar lines. (Why? If you’re certain Abbas Kiarostami is the source, we’re done. Thank you. Shut up.)
Raymond Durgnat (Critic): “A film is not what is on the screen, but what happens between the screen and the viewer.”
A real quote wrongly attributed (actually said by Ernest Callenbach).
Robert Bresson (Director): He often spoke about the “resurrection” of a film in the mind of the viewer, though his phrasing was more technical and poetic.
Probably fake. Bresson was Catholic and the only quotes online where he speaks of “resurrection” have explicit religious connotations.
Roger Ebert: While he didn’t use that exact phrasing, he often wrote about the “afterlife” of a film, saying that a great movie is one that “changes the way you see the world” after you walk out into the street.
0 Google results.
Why this idea matters: In film theory, this is often called “The Cinema of Persistence.”
0 Google results. You start to wonder about some of these “often written” and “often said” things…
There was more slop after this, but I gave up on Gemini and asked Claude…which at least admitted it couldn’t find the quote instead of making up fake ones. That said, I have some doubts about its strategy (searching Google for random famous film critics like Roger Ebert and Pauline Kael along with my quote wrapped in double quotation marks even though I said it was a loose paraphrase).
Do Not Trust Gemini to Help You Write Simple <50 LOC Bash Scripts
I have a text file. I need to split its lines into various subfiles, based on character strings.
(As in, lines containing “peaches” are written to peaches.txt, lines containing “apples” are written to apples.txt, and so on.)
I wrote a little bash script that achieved this using elifs and regex comparisons, and asked Gemini for comments. It made two suggestions
1) It noticed that I was checking for the rarest condition first, which is wasteful. I should sieve coarse and then fine: check for characters present in 50% of strings before checking for those in 1% of strings. Good suggestion!
2) It proposed replacing my clunky branching elif/regex patterns with bash cases and wildcards, which are native to the shell and thus bypass using the Regex engine. It provided a rewritten script that it said would be “much faster”. I tried it out, and well…
Thanks, that does seem like a more “correct” approach.
But when I tested it, your script was actually slower by a few ms! (for your information, I am using Ubuntu 22.04.5 LTS on Windows 10 x64 via WSL2, with VScode as an editor)
split.md (mine)
real 0m0.094s
user 0m0.021s
sys 0m0.006s
split2.sh (yours)
real 0m0.107s
user 0m0.004s
sys 0m0.016s
At first, I assumed that this was merely an artifact of my test file being small.
So I pasted about 15k lines of text into it, to simulate a more realistic export, and strangely it was still slower (by about half a second realtime.)
split.sh (mine)
real 0m48.519s
user 0m1.972s
sys 0m4.682s
split2.sh (yours)
real 0m49.051s
user 0m1.401s
sys 0m3.082s
Why do you think this is? You don’t have to try to fix it, I’m just curious.
Gemini provided a Clintonesque “correction” that avoided any insinuation that it had made a mistake.
This is a fascinating result! It is counter-intuitive, but perfectly explainable when we look at how Bash actually handles I/O (Input/Output).
The short answer is: Logic speed doesn’t matter when disk writing is the bottleneck.
Here is the breakdown of why the “optimized” script didn’t win, and why it was actually slightly slower.
Our respective scripts were opening and closing a subshell with each line, bloating the I/O time. To ensure I got the point, it indulged in a classic “LLMism”: cutesy, condescending metaphors.
Imagine you are moving house.
Regex vs Case: This is like deciding whether to check the label on a box with a magnifying glass (Regex) or just glancing at the color (Case). Glancing is faster.
File I/O (>>): This is walking the box out to the truck.
If you have to walk 15,000 boxes to the truck one by one, it doesn’t matter how fast you check the label. The walking (File I/O) takes 99.9% of the time.
I’m still confused! Okay, so the main bottleneck was disk writes. Got it. But that doesn’t explain why “optimizing” the script made it slower. All else equal, someone who checks box labels quickly should always be faster than someone who checks box labels slowly, even if checking box labels is only a small percentage of the overall time. We certainly wouldn’t expect them to be slower.
Gemini offered to rewrite the script using awk, which it said would allow buffer writes and speed up runtime from “48 seconds down to ~0.5 seconds”).
If there was a ~96x speedup on the cards, why not suggest that at the start, instead of a marginal improvement that actually made the situation worse?
It started to become incredibly fixated on speeding up the bash script, even though I said it didn’t have to fix anything.
To be clear, I don’t give a shit whether a text file processes 13 milliseconds faster or slower. Speeding up the file was Gemini’s idea, not mine: I was merely curious as to why it had failed. But Gemini got confused, mistook its priorities for mine, and entered a life-or-death struggle to shave milliseconds off that runtime. Relax. It’s not that serious.
As if to lighten the mood, it then referenced my older Robocop conversation, like this was an in-joke we now shared.
Would you like me to analyze that Robocop scene you were interested in, or help you clean up the bash script further?
I would rather have the Devil spank my ass with a hand that’s on fire.
Here at Coagulopath dot com we pride ourselves on staying... | News | Coagulopath
Here at Coagulopath dot com we pride ourselves on staying up to the minute, so let’s discuss the presidency of George Bush.
Bush was a popular and well-liked man who presided over a largely peaceful epoch of American history. Little of note happened in his Presidency.
Yes, he made some mistakes. (Like you’re perfect). He might have meant well when he signed the so-called “No Child Left Behind” Act into law, but I think it’s clear by now that some children should be left behind. Most children, if we’re honest with ourselves.
Bush had a totalizing stranglehold on the entertainment world from 2000 to 2007. He was The Issue. I remember Bush jokes going through a cycle: first they were funny, then they were lame, then they went beyond lame and became funny again, because you assumed the person was attempting ironic anti-comedy. (“That Gilligan’s Island show, huh? If they’re so smart they can build a radio out of a coconut, how come they can’t fix the dang hole in the boat? Who writes this shit? George Bush? Wacka wacka!”)
In 2000, a celebrity’s street cred hinged on one thing: can I find a quote of them threatening to bloodily disembowl Bush on the front page of a Google or AltaVista search, yes or no? Midriff-baring teen pop chanteuse Britney Spears sealed her fate as a ditz when she said “I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that.” Conversely, every moribund rock band from Ministry to Green Day resurged to a minor comeback by being willing to say “fuck Bush” on record—comebacks that usually burned out years before Bush left office. He tended to outlast his critics.
Bush’s influence on the internet has waned significantly. In 2025, his main legacy to pop culture is the internet meme below: an expression of polite concern while someone (White House Chief of Staff Andy Card) whispers in his ear.
Bush is a fascinating case of how internet memes tend to devour their subject. Call it Bugs Bunny Syndrome. Bugs was a character designed to be charismatic, cool, fun, and interesting—a trickster God, a fast-talking smart-aleck, Loki fused at the medial lobe with Clark Gable. A character designed to survive the ages and never diminishing to anything less than his whole. It didn’t work. The internet swallowed him, then shat out a disgusting corpse. Bugs Bunny’s existence has collapsed to a single frame from a 1941 Bob Clampett short where he looks fat and weird. That’s it. See what time makes of us.
They don’t even call him Bugs Bunny anymore.
So you’ll have to trust me when I say that Bush was more than a pretty face. He was reknowned as an orator. The speeches he delivered will be stared at—not read, *stared at*—for generations to come. He declaimed fearful, awe-inspiring words over the American project. Words to be written in letters as deep as a spear is long on the firestones on the Secret Hill. Words to be read by flickering torchlight on the crumbling walls of an ancient Mayan temple, while the camera pans onto the explorer’s shocked face.
He was a 9th-dan blackbelt of the “Bushism”—a unique rhetorical style that I don’t think anyone else ever mastered. You can Google Bushisms for complete lists. A “just the hits” playlist would include:
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
“Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning?”
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, ‘Fool me once, shame on…shame on you.‘ Fool me—you can’t get fooled again.”
Bush spoke earnest yet odd sentences that were both incredibly funny and uniquely malformed.
“Just like Donald J Trump!” That’s where we part ways, friend. Trump is funny but not particularly earnest. Bush meant every word he misspoke. Also, I’ve often heard people do successful impressions of Trump, but have never heard a successful off-brand Bushism.
Why do I like Bushisms so much?
I think it’s the delivery. George Meyer (writer for The Simpsons) once observed that a true fan of comedy laughs at the setup, not the punchline. You don’t laugh when Homer Simpson knocks over a stack of wineglasses, you laugh when the wineglasses get stacked in the first place (you’re thinking two steps ahead, and know that Homer will soon come blundering into the room.)
Bush is a man who knows 1) what words he should say 2) how they should be said. All the pieces are there…but then the words just come out wrong. Maybe he’s nervous, or maybe he’s mentally retarded. But it’s this mismatch of intent and outcome that makes Bushisms hilarious. You sense the furiously noble intent behind them…and then he fails. He probably stayed up late practicing his speech in front of a mirror, and it still did no good. He furrows his brow, clenches his hands to the stand…and then spews out nonsense. His frustration and failure is palpable, and (to me, at least) hugely relatable.
This is another area where he differs from Trump. Most of Trump’s words provoke a reaction of “what was he even trying to say?”
I do not understand Trump’s words. I do not even think there’s even that much to understand: it’s all just blurted out top-of-the-head shit. He does not plan his speeches, and feels no shame when he misspeaks. You’re kind of a sucker for reading anything into them. Spend thirty seconds thinking about anything Trump says, and that’s half a minute more than Trump did.
When Bush mangled a sentence, you could always see the unmangled version of what he was trying to say, pure and unsullied and unspoken—like a puppy playing in heaven while its Earthly body lies mashed into the road by an eighteen-wheeler. There’s always a smart, dignified version of Bush’s words. This seldom the case for Trump. Take his comments about John McCain to Frank Lunz.
And I supported him, I supported him for president. I raised a million dollars for him. It’s a lot of money. I supported him. He lost, he let us down. He lost. So I’d never liked him as much after that because I don’t like losers. He’s a war hero. (…) He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, okay?
A fairly offensive statement. But what’s interesting is that there’s no possible way it could have not been offensive.
The statement is predicated on Trump’s personal preference being the thing to care about. It’s not a discussion of John McCain’s qualities: it’s a discussion of whether Trump “likes” the man or not. That’s the important thing here at stake here—Trump’s likes and dislikes. He sounds like he’s talking about ice cream flavors.
“He’s a war hero with sprinkles. And I like war heroes without sprinkles. I like war heroes with a chocolate topping, okay?”
There is literally no way Trump’s words could ever not have been a trainwreck. In George Meyer’s The Simpsons metaphor, it’s like if Homer stumbled through a bunch of glasses that were already smashed when they came out of the factory.
Imagine if he’d said the opposite of what he’d said. “I like John McCain, even though he was a loser. He got captured, but I still like him. I like all war heroes equally, even the ones who got captured.” …It’s still barely less offensive!
I find it difficult to imagine Trump’s brain. It must be a scary place. Thoughts get ripped from dendrites and flung screaming into the world like baby birds catapulted out of their nests before their feathers have even dried. Few people are like him. His brain is truly alien. I can’t even compare him to ChatGPT, which has been known to solve high level math problems occasionally.
I find George Bush far more relatable. Donald J Trump is an alien, but George W Bush is the ur-human. Few of us have his gift of rhetoric, but we all know what it’s like to have amazing thoughts and have them come out a disgusting slurry.
Bush is inside us all. We’ve all spiritually looked awkward in a cowboy hat, haven’t we? We’ve all painted a malformed dog or two, metaphorically speaking. We’ve all been figuratively elected by nonliteral hanging chads in some allegorical Palm Beach County of the soul.
