If you look at his "tweets & replies", not only at tweets, the past days show a lot of aggressiveness and bad temper. So I think "banter" is too friendly of a description.
I had not clocked the earlier reply to malleynotagain, because I didn't go that far back yet and I'm myself trying to figure out what is going on.
But it seems there are two issues: The AI use which was disclosed late (as I mentioned, early replies of his spoke of a "team"), and which also used a lot of Tribunal Tweets' work, and the fight with others, of which I don't know the complete background.
There were people who formulated better what I am thinking about:
hatpinwoman /x
https://nitter.poast.org/hatpinwoman/status/1954541074036244865#m
"Using AI to make posts about the harm of the trans movement stands in direct contrast to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of sincere and heartfelt words that have been offered by women
And by good men who support us
It stands in contrast to the time, the effort, the thought and the conviction behind what we say via text based mediums and via our own voices
I think it stands in direct contrast to the fact gathering, research based, and boots on the ground expertise of many women as well I would also really question why a given individual would require a whole team to make coherent tweets unless they hope to make money from ‘their’ input without doing the kind of work a vast number of women are doing for free
It actually matters that human beings negotiate these issues, and preserve women and children’s rights.
And for any man to swan in, and abdicate moral responsibility to a mindless machine on our behalf, is entirely unethical
Letting a machine speak for you is a personal choice you should make in your free time…
Not in the centre of an existential fight for women’s human rights
I think Jean Hatchet was right to raise a red flag for our attention here"
and
ShararAli / X
https://nitter.poast.org/ShahrarAli/status/1954647070431932786#m
"Really disappointed to learn about extensive use of AI in posts from the boswell account. Even were it partial, that still would have had the power to infiltrate the whole. Failure to have disclosed this at point of publication adds another problematic layer.
People do need to know who is behind the words they read. That has not to do with anonymity as such, as the many fantastic anon accounts here would attest - it's to do with those most fundamental conditions of truth, authenticity & testimony. Passing off someone else's work as one's own is dishonest (aka plagiarism), but so is passing off nobody's work as one's own.
A machine is not a person.
I had no idea the temptation to exploit AI for such purposes was quite so extreme - although I'm aware of the increased risk or temptation in recruitment etc.
Looks like we might be facing a growing problem & I guess it shouldn't be too hard to "instruct" a machine to introduce some "imperfections", for those who did cotton on to the signs or had the suspicion.
I'm really grateful to those who raised the alarm. Authorship is a fundamental condition of speech worthy of the name."