Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: I Built Paul Graham's Intellectual Captcha Idea

mentwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: Show HN: I Built Paul Graham's Intellectual Captcha Idea

#41

Post by samjohnson »

rogual wrote: post #8
_alternator_ wrote: post #3

Two mild concerns: first, I missed one and it told me I didn’t miss any at the end. Second, some of the logic problems have flawed premises (eg All licensed pilots must pass a medical exam. Jake is a licensed pilot, therefore Jake passed a medical exam.) If you see the flaw in the premise (it assumes no fraud) then the conclusion does not follow. Im not sure you’re going to be able to actually improve human discourse…

I took the pilot one as an abstract logic type question where you're supposed to assume the premise is true, so I said yes and the page said I was right, because that's a "valid logical deduction" or something. Then there was another question in the same format that said "if you study hard enough you'll pass the exam. You didn't pass, so you didn't study hard enough." So I thought, oh, another logic one, and said yes…

It was the same kind of logic question. You missed a key word in your quote. I think it said “If you study hard enough you _can_ pass the exam”. It was there to make it clear that studying hard is not a guarantee for passing the test, and therefore can’t be used as the certain reason for failure.

Re: Show HN: I Built Paul Graham's Intellectual Captcha Idea

#42

Post by RugnirViking »

The questions suck. It's an interesting idea, but basically a worse execution of Cicada 3301.

I'd suggest using questions that are nothing to do with politics, and also actually falsifiable. Estimation questions could be a good proxy. How many grains of sand on the earth, you gotta be right to two orders of magnitude or the like

Logic questions aren't bad, but don't use ones like in your example because they're badly posed questions. (Of course, many people claim this about any kind of logic question etc)

But ultimately the questions don't matter. It's the existence of any barrier at all, to set a required standard of effort, and to set the tone. Do you want yours to be 'smart person'? Or 'agrees with me ideologically'? Right now it's leaning more ideological than perhaps intended

Re: Show HN: I Built Paul Graham's Intellectual Captcha Idea

#44

Post by littlestymaar »

notsound wrote: post #30
littlestymaar wrote: post #25

You can rename it “conservative circle jerk captcha” and it would be more accurate.

I got a 10 out of 10 because I've seen these strawmans in center-right arguments before. Definitely promotes thinking inside the box; the homelessness question presupposes the most expensive solution (buying the homeless homes) in opposition to annual costs that would probably go down over time. I doubt both figures.

When I saw the first test, I was tempted to answer “no” just because it felt like a bait.

Then was like “no, it can't be that dumb so I did some napkin math and was like “ok at least theoretically that would fit the said amount, even though the problem is far more complex than just a money issue” and so I clicked “yes”. I didn't expected the sheer dumbness of the argument being made in the answer (nobody talks about buying a new house every year to homeless people, come on).

Re: Show HN: I Built Paul Graham's Intellectual Captcha Idea

#45

Post by littlestymaar »

nailer wrote: post #40
littlestymaar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first one is utterly stupid. Housing is a very complex issue that goes well beyond the sheer cost of the housing unit. Do I think “solving homelessness” is easy with $10B? No. Does the calculation made in the answer makes any sense: absolutely not.

[flagged]

> > The first one is utterly stupid.

> OK, why?

Come on. I literally spent the rest of the comment on that. …

> > Housing is a very complex issue

> OK, why?

Because you can't increase it enough without also tanking the real estate market. And because homelessness has many factors you can't fix with a one size fits all solution.

> > Does the calculation made in the answer makes any sense: absolutely not.

> OK, why?

Because nobody is ever going to pay a brand new home to each homeless every year (which is what the calculation is about).

There's no point in participating in any kind of adult discussion if you can't read the other's comment. Also brandolini's law.

Re: Show HN: I Built Paul Graham's Intellectual Captcha Idea

#46

Post by littlestymaar »

dwroberts wrote: post #17
snissn wrote: post #4

This is weird political propaganda. The first post misrepresented annual costs of housing.

Yeah this was my immediate impression as well. The assertion that homing every homeless person is the same as putting them up in unique per-person accommodation that ends up costing 65 billion is absurd.

> the same as putting them up in unique per-person accommodation

And a new one every year, at that.

Re: Show HN: I Built Paul Graham's Intellectual Captcha Idea

#47

Post by nailer »

littlestymaar wrote: post #45
nailer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> > The first one is utterly stupid. > OK, why? Come on. I literally spent the rest of the comment on that. … > > Housing is a very complex issue > OK, why? Because you can't increase it enough without also tanking the real estate market. And because homelessness has many factors you can't fix with a one size fits all solution. > > Does the calculation made in the answer makes any sense: absolutely not. > OK, why? Be…

It's possible you and I might be discussing different things by 'the answer'.

The second item (the first is about election predictions) is:

> It would cost about $1 billion annually to end family homelessness. And about $10 billion to end all homelessness. But our politicians would rather spend that on genocide.

with the answer being:

> False. Since 2019, California has spent about $24 billion on homelessness, but in this five-year period, homelessness increased by about 30,000.

Which is fairly clear, I don't think would label 'bullshit' and it doesn't seem like you're trying to refute.

If you mean something else by 'the answer' I apologize.

Re: Show HN: I Built Paul Graham's Intellectual Captcha Idea

#48

Post by littlestymaar »

nailer wrote: post #47
littlestymaar wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > The first one is utterly stupid. > OK, why? Come on. I literally spent the rest of the comment on that. … > > Housing is a very complex issue > OK, why? Because you can't increase it enough without also tanking the real estate market. And because homelessness has many factors you can't fix with a one size fits all solution. > > Does the calculation made in the answer makes any sense: absolutely not. > OK, why? Be…

It's possible you and I might be discussing different things by 'the answer'. The second item (the first is about election predictions) is: > It would cost about $1 billion annually to end family homelessness. And about $10 billion to end all homelessness. But our politicians would rather spend that on genocide. with the answer being: > False. Since 2019, California has spent about $24 billion on homelessness, but in…

> with the answer being:

> > False. Since 2019, California has spent about $24 billion on homelessness, but in this five-year period, homelessness increased by about 30,000

Ah, I see the problem now, OP changed their previous answer to this question, which explains the lack of mutual understanding between the two of us.

The previous answer, which I called bullshit, used to multiply the number of homeless people in California by the price of a buying house and used that as an argument. I think we can agree that this is a very poor one as I've not see anyone suggesting buying real estate at market rate and giving it to homeless people for free. Also, it used to be the first question.

That being said, I don't think the question makes any sense anyway even with its updated answer: how you spend the money has as much impact as how much money you spend. The answer means we can agree that California's current policy to fight homelessness is arguably a failure, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be a cheaper policy leading to better results (like how European countries spend much less in healthcare than Americans for a significantly better health and higher life expectancy). But on the flip side, even if such a good policy existed, that wouldn't mean solving homelessness is trivial like the original tweet suggests.

Re: Show HN: I Built Paul Graham's Intellectual Captcha Idea

#49

Post by nailer »

littlestymaar wrote: post #48
nailer wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible you and I might be discussing different things by 'the answer'. The second item (the first is about election predictions) is: > It would cost about $1 billion annually to end family homelessness. And about $10 billion to end all homelessness. But our politicians would rather spend that on genocide. with the answer being: > False. Since 2019, California has spent about $24 billion on homelessness, but in…

> with the answer being: > > False. Since 2019, California has spent about $24 billion on homelessness, but in this five-year period, homelessness increased by about 30,000 Ah, I see the problem now, OP changed their previous answer to this question, which explains the lack of mutual understanding between the two of us. The previous answer, which I called bullshit, used to multiply the number of homeless people in Ca…

> The answer means we can agree that California's current policy to fight homelessness is arguably a failure, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be a cheaper policy leading to better results

Agreed.

Post reply on HN