261–270 of 285 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Echo chamber of rational, thoughtful and truthful speakers is what I’m looking for in Internet forums.
flat earth creationists would describe their colleagues the same way. a group of them certainly is an echo chamber; why isn't your view?
10 Years Ago, December 11, 2015 - Introducing Open AI -- very meta: https://karpathy.ai/hncapsule/2015-12-11/index.html#article-... The company has changed and it seems the mission has as well.
> The original “non‑profit, open, patents shared” promise now reads almost like an alternate timeline. Today OpenAI is a capped‑profit entity with a massive corporate partner, closed frontier models, and an aggressive product roadmap.
This is a perfect example of the power and problems with LLMs. I took the narcissistic approach of searching for myself. Here's a grade of one of my comments[1]: >slg: B- (accurate characterization of PH’s “networking & facade” feel, but implicitly underestimates how long that model can persist) And here's the actual comment I made[2]: >And maybe it is the cynical contrarian in me, but I think the "real world" aspect…
With that context, if someone were to read your comment and be asked 'does this person think the product's model is viable in the long run' I think a lot of people would respond 'no'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need a person's text with their actual identity to pull that off. Normally that's pretty hard, especially since you'll get different formats. Like I don't write the same way on Twitter as HN. But yeah, this stuff has been advancing and I don't think it is okay.
The AOL scandal pretty much proved that anonymity is a mirage. You may think you are anonymous but it just takes combining a few unrelated databases to de-anonymize you. HN users think they are anonymous but they're not, they drop factoids all over the place about who they are. 33 bits... it is one of my recurring favorite themes and anybody in the business of managing other people's data should be well aware of the…
Besides, the main problem of how difficult it is to deanonymize, not if possible.
Privacy and security both have to perfect defense. For example, there's no passwords that are unhackable. There are only passwords that cannot be hacked with our current technology, budgets, and lifetime. But you could brute force my HN password, it would just take billions of years.
The same distinction it's important here. My threat model on HN doesn't care if you need to spend millions of dollars nor thousands of hours to deanonymize me. My handle is here to discourage that and to allow me to speak more freely about certain topics. I'm not trying to hide from nation states, I'm trying to hide from my peers in AI and tech. So I can freely discuss my opinions, which includes criticizing my own community (something I think everyone should do! Be critical of the communities we associate with). And moreso I want people to consider my points on their merit alone, not on my identity nor status.
If I was trying to hide from nation states I'd do things very very differently, such as not posting on HN.
I'm not afraid of my handle being deanonymized, but I still think we should recognize the dangers of the future we are creating.
By oversimplifying you've created the position that this is a lost cause, as if we already lost and that because we lost we can't change. There are multiple fallacies here. The future has yet to be written.
If you really believe it is deterministic then what is the point to anything? To have desires it opinions? Are were just waiting to see which algorithm wins out? Or are we the algorithms playing themselves out? If it's deterministic wouldn't you be happy if the freedom algorithm won and this moment is an inflection in your programming? I guess that's impossible to say in an objective manner but I'd hope that's how it plays out
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Echo chamber of rational, thoughtful and truthful speakers is what I’m looking for in Internet forums.
flat earth creationists would describe their colleagues the same way. a group of them certainly is an echo chamber; why isn't your view?
The tools for controlling your feed are reducing on social media like Instagram, TikTok, Youtube, etc., but simply saying that you follow and respect the opinions of a select group doesn't necessarily mean you're forming an echo chamber.
This is different from something like flat earth/other conspiracy theories where when confronted with opposite evidence, they aren't likely to engage with it in good faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it depends on if you vote based on the quality of contribution to the discussion or based on how much you agree/disagree.
I don't think you can change user behavior like this. You can give them a "venting sink" though. Instead of having a downvote button that just downvotes, have it pop up a little menu asking for a downvote reason, with "spam" and "disagree" as options. You could then weigh downvotes by which option was selected, along with an algorithm to discover "user honesty" based on whether their downvotes correlate with others o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit's current structure very much produces an echo chamber with only one main prevailing view. If everyone used an extension like this I would expect it to increase overall diversity of opinion on the site, as things that conflict with the main echo chamber view could still thrive in their own communities rather than getting downvoted with the actual spam.
Hacker News structure is identical though. Topics invite different demographics and downvotes suppress unpopular opinions. The front page shows most up voted stories. It's the same system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Boring but right" generally means that this prediction is already priced in to our current understanding of the world though. Anyone can reliably predict "the sun will rise tomorrow", but I'm not giving them high marks for that.
I'm giving them higher marks than the people who say it won't. LLMs have seen huge improvements over the last 3 years. Are you going to make the bet that they will continue to make similarly huge improvements, taking them well past human ability, or do you think they'll plateau? The former is the boring, linear prediction.
Surely you meant the latter? The boring option follows previous experience. No technology has ever not reached a plateau, except for evolution itself I suppose, till we nuke the planet.
Commenters of HN: Your past thoughts have been dredged up and judged. For each $TOPIC, you have been awarded a grade by GPT-5.1 Thinking. Your grade is based on OpenAI's aligned worldview and what OpenAI's blob of weights considers Truth in 2025. Did you think well , netizen? Are you an Alpha or a Delta-Minus? Where will the dragnet grading of your online history happen next?