I support a rule to ban AI-generated/edited posts.
Initially I thought they'd be fine, because AI-generated isn't intrinsically an issue and the comments can be good. But in practice, the AI posts tend to be slop, and usually there's a better human-written source for the same topic (for example, one of the many other recent "age verification is mass surveillance" posts here).
Part of this was written by AI, but with a human in "charge" who
explained which part of AI was used here. Would that also be a
bannable example for you? I am not so convinced that this is
bannable per se. Perhaps it may be different if the AI-slop was
not announced, but when it was announced and explained?
> one of the many other recent "age verification is mass surveillance"
> posts here
Well, it actually is. It taps very much into other similar laws
e. g. "chat control", aka chat sniffing.
I should've said "guideline". I think posts can include AI if it's reasonable and/or they're good, while the guideline gives a reason to flag AI posts that are generally bad.
> It taps very much into other similar laws e. g. "chat control", aka chat sniffing.
There are many recent Chat Control posts here too. I agree Chat Control is bad, and poorly-implemented age verification is bad (though it can be implemented in privacy-preserving ways, albeit ineffectively; I commented about this 42 days ago at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47123507, and it was stale then). I don't want to hear anymore about it. Maybe I need a filter myself, for the lucky 10,000. But the problem even for them, is that the repeated posts (without links to previous posts) have mostly low-effort comments, because people who made high-effort comments can't/won't keep repeating them.
that's a stretch: andreessen got wealthy because he worked for the UIUC group in a project which turned out super popular, super funded by Jim Clark, and got massive explosion in worth. there's no sociopathy involved from him back then.
Musk made a company that jumpstarted some wealth and invested in other things which exploded.
Toto Wolff is a gazillionaire because he too made some pretty incredibly timed investments.
point is, extreme wealth results from some combination of work, timing luck, strategy, and sociopathy, but they're not all required to span the space of wealthy people.
Yeah, that's the thing; once you have a billion dollars, you are set for many lifetimes of extremely comfortable living. Allowing a single person to suffer while you have more wealth than you can spend in a dozen (or more) lifetimes is pretty cruel. I mean, I don't really see how it is significantly different than hoarding.
I've never had billions of dollars and realistically I probably won't ever have billions of dollars, but I would certainly like to think that I'd keep enough for myself to keep myself thoroughly entertained, and then give the rest away somehow.
Of course, I've never been tested with this. Maybe if I was gifted billions of dollars I'd be as evil as the rest of the billionaires.
i think your observation is consistent with the giving pledge thing of warren buffett and others, that they accrued massive wealth but want to give it away.
My first reaction to the title was: "duh, selection/survivorship bias" but their counter is pretty solid:
> Firstly and perhaps most importantly, selection bias is possible because individuals who are at higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease may be less likely to enter or remain in memory intensive driving occupations such as taxi and ambulance driving. This could mean that the lower Alzheimer’s disease mortality observed in these occupations is not due to the protective effect of the job itself but rather because those prone to the disease may have self-selected out of such roles. However, Alzheimer’s disease symptoms typically develop after patients’ working years, with only 5-10% of cases occurring in people younger than 65 years (early onset).1114 While subtle symptoms could develop earlier, they would still most likely be after a person had worked long enough to deem the occupation to be a so-called usual occupation, suggesting against substantial attrition from navigational jobs due to development of Alzheimer’s disease. Moreover, even if lifelong taxi driving selects for individuals with strong spatial processing, our findings would still suggest an interesting link between spatial processing skills and risk of Alzheimer’s disease.
If you read the news with enough cynicism, you'll realize that rules like formality, password strength or cybersecurity hygiene are for the average Joes, not the morons/perverts who run the world.
The author should consider smelling his own perfume, given the state and design of the site where he delivers his musings and gives us the moral lecture on not making the lives of one's customers miserable (without a hint of irony).
So we now have just pure marketing slop on the HN front page? How is this interesting or "curious" again? The AI slop season is affecting HN in clever ways.
The tech is interesting and useful, no need for the scary moral framing.
The original application of the entire field of data science or ML is/was actually based on this paradigm of finding "unconscious preferences" (your words) and hidden patterns. How one chooses to deploy the tech should be judged on its own.
On the current trajectory of tool/data abuse where Palantir et al. are leading the way, this is very low on the sinister scale.
I am not disputing that the tech is interesting. My point is about how it is being applied. The examples above are not about understanding people, they are about exploiting their latent preferences (before: "unconscious preference") for persuasion at scale.
Attempting to normalize that by saying "Palantir is worse" does not make it any less manipulative and sinister.
And to be more on topic, Twitter's value as dataset is overstated. Hardly the panacea people make it out to be.
To not frame the amorality and negative effects centrally and primarily is to be dishonest. There is absolutely not a single person whose wage doesn't rely on not seeing it, that doesn't see that that entire branch of tech has strictly negative value to society.
But of course, line must go up, and it's not you personally being negatively affected, so it doesn't matter.
Yeah, maybe let's change the title to remove that 84% rate. It's meaningless because it's just 254 websites, given the scale of what Google Safe Browsing deals with.
How is this serious? This is a marketing slop. If the title isn't enough indicator, the ending should be:
> If you're interested in trying Muninn, it's available as a Chrome extension. We're in an early phase and would genuinely appreciate feedback from anyone willing to give it a shot. And if you run across phishing in the wild, consider submitting it to Yggdrasil so the data can help protect others.
reply