111–120 of 148 posts
I'd love a userscript that autohides/downvotes every "I asked ChatGPT and it said..." post. I'm getting tired of doing it manually.
It is rude to reply to anyone with a link to "Let me Google that for you" but apparently "Let me ask ChatGPT for you" is widely accepted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tags would help here, in that you could use them to filter out what you don't want to see. I've asked many times for HN to allow tagging, but my sense is that it's never going to happen. Another idea is to use a spam filter on an RSS feed of HN articles. I did this decades ago for my personal feed, using bayesean spam filters, and it worked well enough. Finally, you could use an AI to filter for you.
You may enjoy https://lobste.rs then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I wouldn't say "what bitcoin got wrong" but rather "what people who were overly hyping bitcoin got wrong" It hasn't totally played out yet, but it doesn't seem like it is on track to be a currency, and the underlying tech hasn't proven to have a ton of uses beyond crypto currencies. Not trying to straw man here, just trying to honestly reply to your comment.
> what people who were overly hyping bitcoin got wrong Did they? It's the best performing asset in the last decade. I think they got it right.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35445497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35543338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35202365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34746595
Thanks dang. It's good to know that 1) things are being done about it (even if it's not enough for some people), and 2) we'd be better off resisting our urge to complain.
Not really an HN problem, but related: I am very fatigued by the ai "hustle" culture that seems to have bubbled up overnight. ".eth" guys changing their name to ".gpt". It would be funny, if it wasn't so cynical, how quickly everyone seems to have acquired expert level knowledge in the field of language models. Something that, just a couple years ago, was a fairly obscure field of artificial intelligence. "LLMs (\w*c…
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35445497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35543338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35202365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34746595
In case you don't click the links above: dang recognizes the tsunami of AI content and it's being downweighted. Some people complain about all the AI content, and those complaints are tiresome too. Thanks dang. It's good to know that 1) things are being done about it (even if it's not enough for some people), and 2) we'd be better off resisting our urge to complain.
If anyone reads those links and still has a question I haven't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at it. It's a tricky situation because all of these things are true:
(1) it's the biggest technological development in a long time;
(2) there's way too much material about it, a lot of which is mediocre;
(3) every user has a different threshold for what feels like 'too much' about it on HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does feel a bit like Bitcoin hype, in that I know there's something wrong with it but I can't quite put my finger on it or explain it. But this is why it's also likely to last a long time, just like Bitcoin did, because it's so enticing and yet so difficult to articulate exactly what it is that's wrong. I'm at that level where I'm just smart enough to know something is wrong here, but not smart enough to say what…
Partially, it is hard to "prove the negative" in a way. The real issue and logical fallacy is people are frontrunning the argument: they are making extraordinary claims of either the current capabilities of the tech or future capabilities, without offering evidence beyond "it's obvious!" or "have you tried it?" or "use the latest model, it's much better!" etc.. and maybe they don't realize it, but these are not good-…
I feel like a lot of valuable time is going to be wasted by engineers trying to prove to managers why ChatGPT can't do a certain thing they want done faster. I don't believe ChatGPT will be a net negative for the world, but it won't be as positive as it could be exactly because of the hype effect.