AI uBlock Blacklist • Hacker News Board

Re: AI uBlock Blacklist

#141

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Feb 25, 2026, 6:09 AM UTC

ragall wrote: post #130

dangus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I understand you won’t lose any sleep, but this is conceptually stupid. That would be like refusing to allow someone to buy a house because the last owner was a convicted of a crime. Sorry, we gotta demolish the house now! And nobody can live on the plot. The owner of this repo is free to do whatever they want but I’m free to point out that it’s a dumb practice.

> That would be like refusing to allow someone to ... You should stop thinking by analogies. You're doing a disservice to yourself and your thinking capacity. > The owner of this repo is free to do whatever they want but I’m free to point out that it’s a dumb practice. I find it very useful, just like most of its users, and if ever I were to find it necessary to use a website that's obviously blocked, I know how to u…

[deleted]

Re: AI uBlock Blacklist

#142

Post by matheusmoreira » Thu, Feb 26, 2026, 3:55 AM UTC

Drupon wrote: post #137

matheusmoreira wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never claimed otherwise. Just saying it's a fact of life that every test has false positives and false negatives. The "is this player cheating" test is no exception. Check out this amazing episode: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26296339 Dude got so fed up with long loading times he debugged the game and not only discovered the cause but actually fixed it. Billion dollar corporation couldn't be assed to do it.…

Yeah that would be a reasonable thing to ban for. Companies can't afford to audit every single unauthorized tampering with their software to ensure that it's benign. If it results in better cheat detection, far better to have a policy that's unobstrusive and non-applicable to 99.99% of users and something the marginal outliers will understand is a risk.

It's a false positive. He would get banned even though he was not cheating.

Whether it's "reasonable" or not comes down to politics. Optimizing for either false positives or false negatives is a policy decision. Do you punish innocents to ensure you catch every single cheater? Do you let cheaters go to ensure you don't punish innocents?

I don't really intend to discuss the above questions. I'm just pointing out the fact one of those so called complainers in the forums could very well turn out to be one of these false positives. That's what the system is optimized for.

Re: AI uBlock Blacklist

#143

Post by ploum » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 10:33 AM UTC

embedding-shape wrote: post #118

ploum wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nope, let the user does the translation, with his own choice of tool and being thus perfectly aware of the shortcomings. I know that some people translate my French posts to read them. That’s really cool. But I would never post something I didn’t write myself (but I use spellcheking tools. I even sometimes disagree with them)

> let the user does the translation Not everyone can. Try going to rural Spain and handing out flyers in English and ask them to translate it themselves, 0% of the people will translate it themselves, it'll go straight into the trash. If you instead hand them something in a language they understand, there is a least a chance they'll read it, even though probably 5% will do so. It's sometimes useful to understand that…

Your example is completely stupid: I’m talking about writing a website.

Would you go to rural Spain without knowing a word of Spanish and handle flyers with a Spanish text you had no way to check? Seriously?