News and What's New in AI

1…45679

Comments

  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 25,078
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    I caught Grok AI lying to me, in a very malicious and deceptive manner. I was watching The Shining and couldn’t remember if the corpse woman kisses Jack in the book like she does in the movie. Grok said she did. I hadn’t read the book in years, but I was skeptical of this answer. I asked Grok to give me the line and it proceeded to spit out 12 paragraphs, all of which were fake, and attributed to Stephen King. I went and grabbed the book to confirm. I took 40 screenshots of the “conversation” because it was so outrageous. Here’s a sample….



    i guess it is best to not ask ai things about literature since it can't get basic facts straight. political discourse, on the other hand, is a okay.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 25,078
    i told you guys about that co-worker of mine that had ai do some work for him that shared completely incorrect and debunked "facts" and stats, right? he got shit canned.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 8,602
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    I caught Grok AI lying to me, in a very malicious and deceptive manner. I was watching The Shining and couldn’t remember if the corpse woman kisses Jack in the book like she does in the movie. Grok said she did. I hadn’t read the book in years, but I was skeptical of this answer. I asked Grok to give me the line and it proceeded to spit out 12 paragraphs, all of which were fake, and attributed to Stephen King. I went and grabbed the book to confirm. I took 40 screenshots of the “conversation” because it was so outrageous. Here’s a sample….





    At least it’s doing something we rarely see from humans, especially on political forums, admit inaccuracies in the face of evidence presented. Curious, which ai program, and was it basic free or premium?
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 45,645
    In an extreme stress test, Antropic’s AI models resorted to blackmail to avoid being shut down. Research scientist Joshua Batson shows Anderson Cooper how it happened and what they learned from it. https://cbsn.ws/3JDgcHx
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 10,090
    Crispon Glover sued Back to the Future when he declined to appear in #2, so they faked his voice, dressed up a look-alike and put him in that upside down thing to hide the differences. I'm pretty sure he won. So if he won that 30 years ago, these lawsuits against AI for copying a voice should be an easy legal battle. 
  • Ledbetterman10
    Ledbetterman10 Posts: 17,017
    Lerxst1992 said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    I caught Grok AI lying to me, in a very malicious and deceptive manner. I was watching The Shining and couldn’t remember if the corpse woman kisses Jack in the book like she does in the movie. Grok said she did. I hadn’t read the book in years, but I was skeptical of this answer. I asked Grok to give me the line and it proceeded to spit out 12 paragraphs, all of which were fake, and attributed to Stephen King. I went and grabbed the book to confirm. I took 40 screenshots of the “conversation” because it was so outrageous. Here’s a sample….





    At least it’s doing something we rarely see from humans, especially on political forums, admit inaccuracies in the face of evidence presented. Curious, which ai program, and was it basic free or premium?
    Free
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 42,255
    mickeyrat said:
    In an extreme stress test, Antropic’s AI models resorted to blackmail to avoid being shut down. Research scientist Joshua Batson shows Anderson Cooper how it happened and what they learned from it. https://cbsn.ws/3JDgcHx
    This was a 60 minutes episode everyone should watch.
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 42,255
    mace1229 said:
    Crispon Glover sued Back to the Future when he declined to appear in #2, so they faked his voice, dressed up a look-alike and put him in that upside down thing to hide the differences. I'm pretty sure he won. So if he won that 30 years ago, these lawsuits against AI for copying a voice should be an easy legal battle. 
    They replace actors all the time.  Not sure how that even won a case actually.  They replaced Martys GF too, she didn't sue.
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 10,090
    edited November 18
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    Crispon Glover sued Back to the Future when he declined to appear in #2, so they faked his voice, dressed up a look-alike and put him in that upside down thing to hide the differences. I'm pretty sure he won. So if he won that 30 years ago, these lawsuits against AI for copying a voice should be an easy legal battle. 
    They replace actors all the time.  Not sure how that even won a case actually.  They replaced Martys GF too, she didn't sue.
    They didn't just replace him, they copied his voice and appearance, and dressed him up and went to other lengths to specifically trick the audience to think that it was the same actor. 
    Thats different than just recasting. They didn't do that with the girlfriend. Or the 500 characters that got recast in game of thrones. 
    That would be like if they did a Kill Bill 3, and Uma Therman declined to do it, they hire a look-alike to impersonate her to make the audience think it was Uma who is paying the role. There's a difference between recasting and impersonating. Whereas everyone knew the girlfriend was a new actor in the sequels. 
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 32,367
    I don’t need it in my life! 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 42,255
    mace1229 said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    Crispon Glover sued Back to the Future when he declined to appear in #2, so they faked his voice, dressed up a look-alike and put him in that upside down thing to hide the differences. I'm pretty sure he won. So if he won that 30 years ago, these lawsuits against AI for copying a voice should be an easy legal battle. 
    They replace actors all the time.  Not sure how that even won a case actually.  They replaced Martys GF too, she didn't sue.
    They didn't just replace him, they copied his voice and appearance, and dressed him up and went to other lengths to specifically trick the audience to think that it was the same actor. 
    Thats different than just recasting. They didn't do that with the girlfriend. Or the 500 characters that got recast in game of thrones. 
    That would be like if they did a Kill Bill 3, and Uma Therman declined to do it, they hire a look-alike to impersonate her to make the audience think it was Uma who is paying the role. There's a difference between recasting and impersonating. Whereas everyone knew the girlfriend was a new actor in the sequels. 
    They showed the back of his head most of the time.  The ONLY time they showed his face was when he was upside down...

    I never understood that lawsuit. I looked at it as someone playing Martys father not playing the actor.
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 10,090
    edited November 20
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    Crispon Glover sued Back to the Future when he declined to appear in #2, so they faked his voice, dressed up a look-alike and put him in that upside down thing to hide the differences. I'm pretty sure he won. So if he won that 30 years ago, these lawsuits against AI for copying a voice should be an easy legal battle. 
    They replace actors all the time.  Not sure how that even won a case actually.  They replaced Martys GF too, she didn't sue.
    They didn't just replace him, they copied his voice and appearance, and dressed him up and went to other lengths to specifically trick the audience to think that it was the same actor. 
    Thats different than just recasting. They didn't do that with the girlfriend. Or the 500 characters that got recast in game of thrones. 
    That would be like if they did a Kill Bill 3, and Uma Therman declined to do it, they hire a look-alike to impersonate her to make the audience think it was Uma who is paying the role. There's a difference between recasting and impersonating. Whereas everyone knew the girlfriend was a new actor in the sequels. 
    They showed the back of his head most of the time.  The ONLY time they showed his face was when he was upside down...

    I never understood that lawsuit. I looked at it as someone playing Martys father not playing the actor.
    How is that any different that using AI to copy Morgan Freeman's voice though?
    They purposely made him upside down to help hide the fact it was a different actor and they impersonated his voice (at least that's what I read the lawsuit claimed, its been so long since I've seen the movie). Thats no different than getting AI to sound like Morgan Freeman in a video. 
    I get he's playing the father, but if they impersonated his voice to trick the audience to believing it was the original actor, that's where I agree with the lawsuit. 
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 45,645
    mace1229 said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    Crispon Glover sued Back to the Future when he declined to appear in #2, so they faked his voice, dressed up a look-alike and put him in that upside down thing to hide the differences. I'm pretty sure he won. So if he won that 30 years ago, these lawsuits against AI for copying a voice should be an easy legal battle. 
    They replace actors all the time.  Not sure how that even won a case actually.  They replaced Martys GF too, she didn't sue.
    They didn't just replace him, they copied his voice and appearance, and dressed him up and went to other lengths to specifically trick the audience to think that it was the same actor. 
    Thats different than just recasting. They didn't do that with the girlfriend. Or the 500 characters that got recast in game of thrones. 
    That would be like if they did a Kill Bill 3, and Uma Therman declined to do it, they hire a look-alike to impersonate her to make the audience think it was Uma who is paying the role. There's a difference between recasting and impersonating. Whereas everyone knew the girlfriend was a new actor in the sequels. 
    They showed the back of his head most of the time.  The ONLY time they showed his face was when he was upside down...

    I never understood that lawsuit. I looked at it as someone playing Martys father not playing the actor.
    How is that any different that using AI to copy Morgan Freeman's voice though?
    They purposely made him upside down to help hide the fact it was a different actor and they impersonated his voice (at least that's what I read the lawsuit claimed, its been so long since I've seen the movie). Thats no different than getting AI to sound like Morgan Freeman in a video. 
    I get he's playing the father, but if they impersonated his voice to trick the audience to believing it was the original actor, that's where I agree with the lawsuit. 
    well, one is an actor playing a role. the other is an actor with an easily recognizable voice being himself.

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 10,090
    edited November 21
    mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    Crispon Glover sued Back to the Future when he declined to appear in #2, so they faked his voice, dressed up a look-alike and put him in that upside down thing to hide the differences. I'm pretty sure he won. So if he won that 30 years ago, these lawsuits against AI for copying a voice should be an easy legal battle. 
    They replace actors all the time.  Not sure how that even won a case actually.  They replaced Martys GF too, she didn't sue.
    They didn't just replace him, they copied his voice and appearance, and dressed him up and went to other lengths to specifically trick the audience to think that it was the same actor. 
    Thats different than just recasting. They didn't do that with the girlfriend. Or the 500 characters that got recast in game of thrones. 
    That would be like if they did a Kill Bill 3, and Uma Therman declined to do it, they hire a look-alike to impersonate her to make the audience think it was Uma who is paying the role. There's a difference between recasting and impersonating. Whereas everyone knew the girlfriend was a new actor in the sequels. 
    They showed the back of his head most of the time.  The ONLY time they showed his face was when he was upside down...

    I never understood that lawsuit. I looked at it as someone playing Martys father not playing the actor.
    How is that any different that using AI to copy Morgan Freeman's voice though?
    They purposely made him upside down to help hide the fact it was a different actor and they impersonated his voice (at least that's what I read the lawsuit claimed, its been so long since I've seen the movie). Thats no different than getting AI to sound like Morgan Freeman in a video. 
    I get he's playing the father, but if they impersonated his voice to trick the audience to believing it was the original actor, that's where I agree with the lawsuit. 
    well, one is an actor playing a role. the other is an actor with an easily recognizable voice being himself.

    Many characters are partially created by the actor. The voicing, specific mannerisms, etc. Thats what makes a good actor. It's one thing to model a replacement after a previous actor, but different to mimic it entirely, down to the voice to deceive the audience it was the same actor. 

    If they did a new sequel to Sandlot, can they have a new actor dress like James Earl Jones and mimic his voice to play that role? It was just a character in a movie.  I would think his estate would file a lawsuit if that happened. Just because your voice is less recognized, it doesn't give people the right to copy it.

    Anyway, back to my original point. Crispin Glover won his lawsuit decades ago. Whether you think he should have or not. Seems like using AI to mimic an actor would be a slam-dunk of a case in comparison.  
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 42,255
    mace1229 said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    Crispon Glover sued Back to the Future when he declined to appear in #2, so they faked his voice, dressed up a look-alike and put him in that upside down thing to hide the differences. I'm pretty sure he won. So if he won that 30 years ago, these lawsuits against AI for copying a voice should be an easy legal battle. 
    They replace actors all the time.  Not sure how that even won a case actually.  They replaced Martys GF too, she didn't sue.
    They didn't just replace him, they copied his voice and appearance, and dressed him up and went to other lengths to specifically trick the audience to think that it was the same actor. 
    Thats different than just recasting. They didn't do that with the girlfriend. Or the 500 characters that got recast in game of thrones. 
    That would be like if they did a Kill Bill 3, and Uma Therman declined to do it, they hire a look-alike to impersonate her to make the audience think it was Uma who is paying the role. There's a difference between recasting and impersonating. Whereas everyone knew the girlfriend was a new actor in the sequels. 
    They showed the back of his head most of the time.  The ONLY time they showed his face was when he was upside down...

    I never understood that lawsuit. I looked at it as someone playing Martys father not playing the actor.
    How is that any different that using AI to copy Morgan Freeman's voice though?
    They purposely made him upside down to help hide the fact it was a different actor and they impersonated his voice (at least that's what I read the lawsuit claimed, its been so long since I've seen the movie). Thats no different than getting AI to sound like Morgan Freeman in a video. 
    I get he's playing the father, but if they impersonated his voice to trick the audience to believing it was the original actor, that's where I agree with the lawsuit. 
    Didn't the actors guild just put in place certain provisions so AI can't use their likeness?

    Mimicking someone elses voice is an absolute violation.

    College athletes recently won their NIL so they can get paid.
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 10,090
    edited November 21
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    Crispon Glover sued Back to the Future when he declined to appear in #2, so they faked his voice, dressed up a look-alike and put him in that upside down thing to hide the differences. I'm pretty sure he won. So if he won that 30 years ago, these lawsuits against AI for copying a voice should be an easy legal battle. 
    They replace actors all the time.  Not sure how that even won a case actually.  They replaced Martys GF too, she didn't sue.
    They didn't just replace him, they copied his voice and appearance, and dressed him up and went to other lengths to specifically trick the audience to think that it was the same actor. 
    Thats different than just recasting. They didn't do that with the girlfriend. Or the 500 characters that got recast in game of thrones. 
    That would be like if they did a Kill Bill 3, and Uma Therman declined to do it, they hire a look-alike to impersonate her to make the audience think it was Uma who is paying the role. There's a difference between recasting and impersonating. Whereas everyone knew the girlfriend was a new actor in the sequels. 
    They showed the back of his head most of the time.  The ONLY time they showed his face was when he was upside down...

    I never understood that lawsuit. I looked at it as someone playing Martys father not playing the actor.
    How is that any different that using AI to copy Morgan Freeman's voice though?
    They purposely made him upside down to help hide the fact it was a different actor and they impersonated his voice (at least that's what I read the lawsuit claimed, its been so long since I've seen the movie). Thats no different than getting AI to sound like Morgan Freeman in a video. 
    I get he's playing the father, but if they impersonated his voice to trick the audience to believing it was the original actor, that's where I agree with the lawsuit. 
    Didn't the actors guild just put in place certain provisions so AI can't use their likeness?

    Mimicking someone elses voice is an absolute violation.

    College athletes recently won their NIL so they can get paid.
    I just googled the Crispin Case to refresh my memory, here's the AI summary:


    The lawsuit: 
    Glover sued after the production used a face mold taken from him during the first film to create prosthetics for actor Jeffrey Weissman, who played George McFly in the sequels. Glover argued this infringed on his right to publicity, as his likeness was used without his consent. 
    The settlement: 
    While a trial was not completed, Universal settled the case out of court. The settlement amount was reportedly $760,000, though attorneys involved did not confirm the exact sum. 
    The impact: 
    The lawsuit was a landmark case that established a precedent for the use of an actor's likeness in film. It resulted in changes to collective-bargaining agreements for the Screen Actors Guild to protect actors from having their likenesses used without their permission. 


    They literally copied his face apparently. And the SAG made new guidelines because of it. So this AI thing really isn't anything new, AI just makes it easier.  It's already been established you can't copy a person's likeness. The voice would fall under that too. I guess they just wanted to be redundant and specific if they updated their policy to mention AI. 
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 42,255
    mace1229 said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    mace1229 said:
    Crispon Glover sued Back to the Future when he declined to appear in #2, so they faked his voice, dressed up a look-alike and put him in that upside down thing to hide the differences. I'm pretty sure he won. So if he won that 30 years ago, these lawsuits against AI for copying a voice should be an easy legal battle. 
    They replace actors all the time.  Not sure how that even won a case actually.  They replaced Martys GF too, she didn't sue.
    They didn't just replace him, they copied his voice and appearance, and dressed him up and went to other lengths to specifically trick the audience to think that it was the same actor. 
    Thats different than just recasting. They didn't do that with the girlfriend. Or the 500 characters that got recast in game of thrones. 
    That would be like if they did a Kill Bill 3, and Uma Therman declined to do it, they hire a look-alike to impersonate her to make the audience think it was Uma who is paying the role. There's a difference between recasting and impersonating. Whereas everyone knew the girlfriend was a new actor in the sequels. 
    They showed the back of his head most of the time.  The ONLY time they showed his face was when he was upside down...

    I never understood that lawsuit. I looked at it as someone playing Martys father not playing the actor.
    How is that any different that using AI to copy Morgan Freeman's voice though?
    They purposely made him upside down to help hide the fact it was a different actor and they impersonated his voice (at least that's what I read the lawsuit claimed, its been so long since I've seen the movie). Thats no different than getting AI to sound like Morgan Freeman in a video. 
    I get he's playing the father, but if they impersonated his voice to trick the audience to believing it was the original actor, that's where I agree with the lawsuit. 
    Didn't the actors guild just put in place certain provisions so AI can't use their likeness?

    Mimicking someone elses voice is an absolute violation.

    College athletes recently won their NIL so they can get paid.
    I just googled the Crispin Case to refresh my memory, here's the AI summary:


    The lawsuit: 
    Glover sued after the production used a face mold taken from him during the first film to create prosthetics for actor Jeffrey Weissman, who played George McFly in the sequels. Glover argued this infringed on his right to publicity, as his likeness was used without his consent. 
    The settlement: 
    While a trial was not completed, Universal settled the case out of court. The settlement amount was reportedly $760,000, though attorneys involved did not confirm the exact sum. 
    The impact: 
    The lawsuit was a landmark case that established a precedent for the use of an actor's likeness in film. It resulted in changes to collective-bargaining agreements for the Screen Actors Guild to protect actors from having their likenesses used without their permission. 


    They literally copied his face apparently. And the SAG made new guidelines because of it. So this AI thing really isn't anything new, AI just makes it easier.  It's already been established you can't copy a person's likeness. The voice would fall under that too. I guess they just wanted to be redundant and specific if they updated their policy to mention AI. 
    No shit?  They used a prosthetic of his face! I agree with that then.  Thats a no brainer.

    Now with that being said I absolutely LOVE the Mr Rogers and Bob Ross AI skits they are doing.
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 42,255
    It bears being repeated...
     
    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPh2o6oDgaV/
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,850
    Scamming via AI is way out of hand.  I've told just about everyone I know something that should not need to be said, that should be obvious:  remain skeptical and vigilant and think critically about everything you see and read.  And yet these same people (at least two of them) have taken the bate (thankfully, only at  relatively minor losses, but who like losing?)   Don't be fooled, especially by social media, and super especially on FB.
    Some good tips in this article:

    Scammers using AI-generated ads on social media, making it harder to spot fakes

    By Joshua Sidorowicz

    November 21, 2025 / 8:59 AM EST / CBS Philadelphia

    They may look like deals from your favorite retailer or even like a celebrity endorses them, but before you click to buy this holiday season, beware.

    Experts warn that scammers are increasingly using AI to generate ads on social media, which is making it harder to spot a fake.


    More at link...





    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 43,469

     * The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.


    But sure, rely on AI to make your argument. Sure. Full article discusses the folks who “train” AI, what and how they do it and like all humans in any job, they’re fallible. Slop.

    Meet the AI workers who tell their friends and family to stay away from AI

    When the people making AI seem trustworthy are the ones who trust it the least, it shows that incentives for speed are overtaking safety, experts say

    AI workers said they distrust the models they work on because of a consistent emphasis on rapid turnaround time at the expense of quality. Brook Hansen, an AI worker on Amazon Mechanical Turk, explained that while she doesn’t mistrust generative AI as a concept, she also doesn’t trust the companies that develop and deploy these tools. For her, the biggest turning point was realizing how little support the people training these systems receive.

    “We’re expected to help make the model better, yet we’re often given vague or incomplete instructions, minimal training and unrealistic time limits to complete tasks,” said Hansen, who has been doing data work since 2010 and has had a part in training some of Silicon Valley’s most popular AI models. “If workers aren’t equipped with the information, resources and time we need, how can the outcomes possibly be safe, accurate or ethical? For me, that gap between what’s expected of us and what we’re actually given to do the job is a clear sign that companies are prioritizing speed and profit over responsibility and quality.”

    Dispensing false information in a confident tone, rather than offering no answer when none is readily available, is a major flaw of generative AI, experts say. An audit of the top 10 generative AI models including ChatGPT, Gemini and Meta’s AI by the media literacy non-profit NewsGuard revealed that the non-response rates of chatbots went down from 31% in August 2024 to 0% in August 2025. At the same time, the chatbots’ likelihood of repeating false information almost doubled from 18% to 35%, NewsGuard found. None of the companies responded to NewsGuard’s request for a comment at the time.

    “I wouldn’t trust any facts [the bot] offers up without checking them myself – it’s just not reliable,” said another Google AI rater, requesting anonymity due to a nondisclosure agreement she has signed with the contracting company. She warns people about using it and echoed another rater’s point about people with only cursory knowledge being tasked with medical questions and sensitive ethical ones, too. “This is not an ethical robot. It’s just a robot.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/nov/22/ai-workers-tell-family-stay-away

    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©

Categories