3 ms·

Whose reaction to being caught being sloppy is, puzzlingly, to scramble for the righteous ground of victimhood… > Faris said she’d faced a wave of harassment o

by alwa 1y ago

Whose reaction to being caught being sloppy is, puzzlingly, to scramble for the righteous ground of victimhood… > Faris said she’d faced a wave of harassment online after the incident and has taken a step back from social media. “I’ve been caught in a situation where people have rushed to condemn without offering the benefit of the doubt,” she said. “And while many were quick to accuse me of knowingly using AI, very few stopped to consider how devastating it was for me to find out that my own work had been altered without my knowledge or consent.”

sandspar 1y ago
That's pretty typical of unethical people. Folk psychology knows it as DARVO (an acronym for "deny, attack, reverse victim & offender"). It's common among abusers and cheaters and other people like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO
perching_aix 1y ago
I might be just impressionable and naive, but if this is a false narrative, apart from me just finding it rather believable, it's also a surprisingly falsifiable one: > According to Faris, she gave two people she’d met in a writing group access to the Google Doc where Rogue Souls lived to help with final revisions and to hunt for typos. She said one of them used AI to fix sentences without her knowledge. “I want to be clear: I never approved the use of AI and I condemn it because [of the usual talking points...] She could just publish the Google Docs document for people to review the edit history of. Not a Google Workspaces whiz, but my impression is that edit history is immutably retained, so unless one could reasonably speculate Google being in on the con, this would conclusively prove (support) her version of the story, particularly if the timelines work out. I wonder if she'd also have a legal case against the person who made the change.

by alwa 1y ago

sandspar 1y ago

That's pretty typical of unethical people. Folk psychology knows it as DARVO (an acronym for "deny, attack, reverse victim & offender"). It's common among abusers and cheaters and other people like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO

perching_aix 1y ago

I might be just impressionable and naive, but if this is a false narrative, apart from me just finding it rather believable, it's also a surprisingly falsifiable one: > According to Faris, she gave two people she’d met in a writing group access to the Google Doc where Rogue Souls lived to help with final revisions and to hunt for typos. She said one of them used AI to fix sentences without her knowledge. “I want to be clear: I never approved the use of AI and I condemn it because [of the usual talking points...] She could just publish the Google Docs document for people to review the edit history of. Not a Google Workspaces whiz, but my impression is that edit history is immutably retained, so unless one could reasonably speculate Google being in on the con, this would conclusively prove (support) her version of the story, particularly if the timelines work out. I wonder if she'd also have a legal case against the person who made the change.