Interesting. Would this apply to any rich enough system of expression, like music or art? Or is there something specific about language that makes it different?
I know nothing of this topic but I'd say language had the benefit of much higher precision and flexibility of description than just music without words, though I guess if someone made a ai that used fragments of sound waves as the basis for its language instead of words you could argue it could be similar. But again it probably won't sound like music.
> Students are smart to be cautious about the future, and it's annoying that adults with no skin in the game so flippantly dismiss these concerns without any data to back it up.
But does it really matter? If the promises associated with AI come true, it won’t really matter what degree you get or what trade you learn, because humam jobs will be a problem solved sooner rather than later.
Look, it's a nice sounding narrative with a sprinkle of truth, but it proves a lot less than it sounds like it does.
There were specific reasons historical communism had such a large death toll, and it traces back mostly to the policies that were introduced and the decisions the political elite made.
So I think it's fair to compare actual policies, and not to judge on the basis of whether someone calls themselves a communist, or whether that label gets applied to them.
To my knowledge, Die Linke is not a revolutionary party, doesn't want to force through breakneck industrialization at any cost, and doesn't deny foundational agricultural science. It's also one of the few parties defending the Informationsfreiheitsgesetz (public access to government records) against the current government's push to gut it.
> They accused me of being 'political' – the very thing an open source project shouldn't be, I'm told. It only divides people. Let's just focus on the technology. Surely we can all get behind building amazing, fast, cool websites!
I would argue that picking an obviously Nazi-coded avatar is in itself political.
It is a deliberate decision to select such an avatar. Nobody picks that symbol by accident. They know exactly what it signals, they know how people will react, and they know that the laissez-faire culture of tech is a perfect ground to normalize this shit.
If there is a not being political rule, then it is perfectly reasonable to ban people like this because they obviously are political.
Yes. It is one of the most polished JRPGs, and there are no random encounters or grinding. The game can be played through in 24 hours, with optional side quests.
> Right now there is a lot of prejudice against AI users, and detection will only encourage that.
That’s exactly how it should be. If you serve me up AI-generated rubbish that I’m then supposed to sift through, you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world.
Implies you'd accept it if it wasn't rubbish. Seriously doubt your filter is based on quality.
> you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world
As if human writing immunizes you from that. Published an article about garbage collection and had people complain about my human voice. One went so far as to suggest I had mental issues. I received praise too but some things you just never forget.
Best part is Claude warned me repeteadly that I should tone it down, and I deliberarely ignored it in order to preserve my voice and keep it pure. I'm much more inclined to listen now.
If its substantially AI generated then it's definitionally rubbish, even if it was a good answer to the prompt. I can send a prompt myself, don't waste my time republishing AI answers.
Please define "substantially". Exactly how many words must come from my hands and brain in order for a work to qualify as human?
Imagine that I write an article manually and keep it to myself. Then I prompt my favorite AI model and it somehow generates the exact same article, against all odds, despite having never seen it before. Then I publish the AI's article, which is equal to mine. Is the article rubbish?
> I can send a prompt myself, don't waste my time republished AI amswers.
I can do it too. I consider it rude to reply to people with AI answers during conversation. Not because I hate AI, but because it made the social interaction pointless.
That doesn't somehow invalidate the value of an AI generated article though. Not everyone thinks to prompt it with that exact idea. Not everyone has an AI they can prompt. Not everyone wants to waste their limited tokens on the idea.
I realize that reading Claudish can be aggravating but that doesn't somehow eliminate the ideas contained in the article. Those can still be very valuable, which is why I advocate for quality filters.
That's a little metaphysical for my taste. If its the same bytes of text, provenance is destroyed anyways, so who knows if the tree fell in the forest.
"Substantially" to me would mean not your ideas and not your writing. I'm sure there are borderline cases that are hard to decide but a rule of thumb for me would be if it takes more time to read than it took the "author" to write.
It's about effort into thinking. If no effort went into either thinking or writing, then I'll plead guilty to sweat of the brow doctrine. Again, just send me the prompt and I'll feed it to AI myself.
Reading is about learning interesting new ideas, enjoying a narrative. The suffering of the author is beside the point.
I can sympathize with the notion that AI writing currently sucks, but not that it's automatically invalid or deserving of mockery. Maybe one day we'll have far better models. Maybe they'll do a good job without inserting any load-bearing vocabulary.
Asking for the prompts is fine, but might not be sufficient. The process iterative, and may incorporate data that won't be published. For example, I recently published a Sol/Fable benchmark article. It would be trivial for anyone to prompt a new version of the article if they had the raw benchmark data, but this data will never be published.
It's not about how good or bad the AI writing is. It's about the human interaction, if someone outsourced their thinking to AI then they are bullshitting me and I will rate their thoughts appropriately at the human level.
If someone's already burned the trees down to generate it once, why would you want to burn more trees, just so you can do it yourself? Do you hate the Earth or something?
I’ve never said that you don’t deserve to be ridiculed when you write human rubbish, but I haven’t claimed the opposite either. However, I do believe that you definitely and without exception deserve to be ridiculed when you produce AI-generated rubbish.
Analyze the game theory of what you just proposed. Have AI effortlessly generate an article for your idea, get ridiculed. Put a lot of time and effort into it instead, maybe get ridiculed anyway.
Yeah, people on HN don't do anything for the pleasure of anything but to be productive and provide value to whoever. So, don't bet on people here understanding this mindset.
The business/money and startup culture is only a part of HN. I'm here because computers are cool and news hits here fast (also the comments can be interesting). I don't care about IPOs, unicorns, celebrities, AI, etc. I like to see the new Asahi Linux updates, Dolphin progress reports, new OpenBSD releases, discussions about vim and emacs or other unix tools, stories of repairing old arcade hardware, that kinda stuff. Some guys on IRC used to post HN links all the time and at some point I became one of them. Perhaps I'm a minority, but I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way.
Once again, I’m not at all surprised that tech people can’t simply enjoy the activity for its own sake, but instead impose their calculating, utility-driven mindset on something that is truly beautiful and brings people together. An absolutely bleak perspective.
> tech people can’t simply enjoy the activity for its own sake
How is this possibly your take away from someone describing how they see something? You know nothing about this person, yet conclude they have a bleak perspective, yet you're the one who is criticizing someone for merely thinking and talking about an activity.
Let people enjoy activities in the way they want. If they want to endlessly analyze and discuss the mechanical details about it, or if they just want to stand on the top of a roof in the rain and dance, who cares? They're both "enjoying" the activity, just in different ways.
The OP's ridicule does make sense. Think about how in Star Trek TNG, Data's description of everyday hobbies and pursuits in logic-speak was used to lend humor to episodes, "Haha, he's so weird". And people often say now that character was a better depiction of an autist than a far-future android.
It would make sense if they actually had seen GP being distracted from the activity itself because they overthink about it.
Here though, we're on a forum, explicitly designed for conversing and discussing things, and they're assuming GP has a bleak perspective because they're actively engaging in the conversation.
That in my mind doesn't make any sense and I'd say is (inadvertently maybe) trying to shut down the conversation instead of curiously engaging with it.
I wouldn't knock neuroatypical people's attempt to overcome their faulty wiring and do something that could socially benefit them, even if the perspective they are doing it from is strange. RMS has spoken about how getting into Bulgarian folk dance was good for him.
reply