481–490 of 559 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not close. Both those mistake knowing for trusting.
I'd say that they don't make trust decisions, rather they give information to the user so that they can decide whether to trust and for what purpose. Linkedin more so than facebook, facebook shows list of common contacts, linkedin shows that plus a literal resume.
Computers are about automation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People will need to participate otherwise there won't be any new content. I see it as just like vouching, except someone has to vouch for green accounts. A slightly more equitable (and easier to implement) version of lobste.rs' invite tree. What I want is for green accounts not to be abused as much as they are. The number of noxious, vitriolic troll alt accounts and bots is getting ridiculous. That is almost entirely…
I think you missed @sltkr's point. HN wouldn't just have less new content ; it would fail to develop new users . That kind of stagnation is how sites like this die. Aggressively filtering to raise the average post quality is a sugar rush and it has the metaphorical long term consequences of type-2 diabetes. Things start out feeling great but the acceleration of death is effectively guaranteed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it establishes a norm that AI-generated blogspam is, well, spam and unwelcome. It is welcome though. Being on the front page regularly is evidence that people enjoy it or find it informative. You may feel that others shouldn't be ALLOWED to enjoy it, but that's just your opinion and is almost always tangential to the actual topic. Worse, you seem to believe that it needs to be labeled to help you identify it. Why?…
> Being on the front page regularly is evidence that people enjoy it or find it informative. What makes you think that it's people who get it to the front page anymore? Or that most people aren't simply fooled by technology designed to mimic humans? > Worse, you seem to believe that it needs to be labeled to help you identify it. Why? Why not? Would adding a label and providing filtering capabilities hurt anyone else…
Its's OK to have political opinions, even the ones that I disagree with. It's not OK to ruin every unrelated conversation ranting about them. Some folks around here have turned into that one uncle nobody likes inviting around to dinner anymore.
If a label would stop that I might be in favor of it. However, I'm certain it would instead be used to remove otherwise high quality content and ultimately reduce the utility of this place.
We're going to at least restrict Show HNs for a while. I do think this is relevant though: "HN can't be immune from macro trends" - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please do so. And, forgive me if I speak heresy, but there has to be more proof of work (friction) to create accounts. I was shocked at how easy it is for something like chatgpt atlas to create new accounts on the fly.
Perhaps more proof of work is necessary, but it makes me sad. I still remember creating my HN account. It stands out in my memory, because it was the smoothest, simplest, easiest, and quickest account creation of my life. I had lurked here for around a decade before finally creating an account. Any urge to participate was thwarted by my resistance toward creating accounts (I just hate account creation for some reason…
I kind of assumed it was hard to make an account (maybe even an invite-only situation) based purely off of how unique most handles were, and how well curated/moderated everything was. So I guess you could say, the quality of the usernames and the quality of the posts :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. If your LLM wrote it, then my LLM can read it. I don't want to.
God help us if we get to the point where we need an LLM agent to do the reading and filtering of all our social content for us. I am completely certain that is a downward spiral that ends with the collapse of our society and I give it 50/50 odds for killing off the entire species.
I predict the outcome will be roughly the same: a more or less working set of LLM filters that allow you to filter out LLM output at the price of some false positives and some false negatives. Coming soon to a browser near you: the Bye AI Plugin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please do so. And, forgive me if I speak heresy, but there has to be more proof of work (friction) to create accounts. I was shocked at how easy it is for something like chatgpt atlas to create new accounts on the fly.
The problem is that we might lose some gold. Not too seldom have I seen the author or a significant party of a story chime in through a fresh green account, as they were alerted by the story being posted here one way or another. And usually when they do it's very interesting. As such I would find it detrimental if they had to jump through too many hoops so they don't bother or it takes too long so the thread dies bef…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please do so. And, forgive me if I speak heresy, but there has to be more proof of work (friction) to create accounts. I was shocked at how easy it is for something like chatgpt atlas to create new accounts on the fly.
The problem is that we might lose some gold. Not too seldom have I seen the author or a significant party of a story chime in through a fresh green account, as they were alerted by the story being posted here one way or another. And usually when they do it's very interesting. As such I would find it detrimental if they had to jump through too many hoops so they don't bother or it takes too long so the thread dies bef…
I have long believed that whatever comes along to replace the reddit/HN etc type site will be based almost entirely on trust networks. i.e. only surface stories posted by or upvoted by those you trust, and the inverse with those you distrust. Then exponentially drop off trust transitively and it could be almost workable.
The return of Advogato. If you weren't around for it, it had a certification system like what you describe, so the stuff on it was pretty good. After a while, spammers figured out that it had very high search engine placement because of its quality, and that pretty much ruined it. It's gone now.
Background on the "trust metric" implemented on the site: https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000542/https://advogato....
Apparently my account on the site is/was now more than a quarter of a century old... Gonna try to avoid thinking on that too deeply. :D
There's been a non-zero number of occasions since that time where I've observed situations that mirror the trust-based challenges Advogato sought to solve.
It is perhaps telling that as prescient as Raph's work on trust metrics was he later moved on to the notoriously challenging realm of font rendering--presumably because it seemed more tractable. :D