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

AI tools are making the world look weird

strat7.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 203 posts

Re: AI tools are making the world look weird

#171

Post by janalsncm »

cortesoft wrote: post #40
YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve seen a massive uptick in the use of ‘weird’ as an insult (charitably because all the old insults get you shadowbanned on social media, less charitably because conformism is what the mainstream values more than anything), so the author isn’t even pretending to hide their agenda here.

I think they chose the WEIRD acronym to challenge the western centrism. For most of the readers of the book, the culture described by the WEIRD acronym is not only the normal culture, but is in many ways considered universal. By calling it WEIRD, the author is trying to drive home the point that the vast majority of people in the world are NOT in that culture that many westerners feel is 'normal', which would make it…

> challenge the western centrism

The authors had a perfect opportunity to use Chinese models to see if their trend held up. Instead, they treated ChatGPT as the “default”. Sound familiar?

Re: AI tools are making the world look weird

#172

Post by janalsncm »

watwut wrote: post #102
YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a member of a group says that a term used to refer to them is pejorative, is it now an acceptable response to simply say ‘no it isn’t’? That hasn’t been the case for decades.

You know, are you seeing it as pejorative or just want to silence the whole idea? Because people who came up with WEIRD acronym were ... WEIRD. They were literally talking about themselves and about weakness of studies that were made.

WEIRD isn’t insulting to be because it’s simply descriptive of you take the terms themselves.

However. No one gave them the right to speak for everyone, and in regular parlance “weird” isn’t a super nice thing to say about someone. They could’ve chosen something else like WESTED “Western, Educated, Stable, Technologically-advanced, Economically Developed” but didn’t. And they don’t get to choose how people will react when they’re called weird.

Re: AI tools are making the world look weird

#174

Post by kjkjadksj »

psidium wrote: post #5

Can’t recommend the book that coined this acronym enough: The WEIRDest People in the World Book by Joseph Henrich. It is such an eye-opening piece that explains so much of the world around us. He’s an anthropologist that goes into the psychology of it all. Touching on points like how religion plays a part in shaping the America of today and even how humans are worst at discerning faces today because we need to discer…

Funny thing with the words. I remember before I could read and billboards just looked like designs. Then once I could read it was like reading was unavoidable, it could not be shut off and you are constantly reading instead of just appreciating the text as some design pattern. At the time I felt ripped off.

Re: AI tools are making the world look weird

#175

Post by kjkjadksj »

derefr wrote: post #10
psidium wrote: post #5

Can’t recommend the book that coined this acronym enough: The WEIRDest People in the World Book by Joseph Henrich. It is such an eye-opening piece that explains so much of the world around us. He’s an anthropologist that goes into the psychology of it all. Touching on points like how religion plays a part in shaping the America of today and even how humans are worst at discerning faces today because we need to discer…

> One of the wildest claims in there is the one that the north of Italy is more developed today because it was part of the Holy Roman Empire while the south wasn’t. About a thousand years separate these and he finds effects still. I would note that the north and south of Italy have very different geography and climate. Which can be upstream of all sorts of things, culturally. The geography of Italy's two halves suppo…

Don’t forget diseases like malaria in the south. That wasn’t dealt with until Mussolini drained some swamps.

Re: AI tools are making the world look weird

#176

Post by maxbond »

janalsncm wrote: post #172
watwut wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, are you seeing it as pejorative or just want to silence the whole idea? Because people who came up with WEIRD acronym were ... WEIRD. They were literally talking about themselves and about weakness of studies that were made.

WEIRD isn’t insulting to be because it’s simply descriptive of you take the terms themselves. However. No one gave them the right to speak for everyone, and in regular parlance “weird” isn’t a super nice thing to say about someone. They could’ve chosen something else like WESTED “Western, Educated, Stable, Technologically-advanced, Economically Developed” but didn’t. And they don’t get to choose how people will react…

The claim at issue isn't, "I find the term WEIRD insulting." As you say, everyone is entitled to feel that way. It's "the term WEIRD is intended by the authors of TFA as an insult and reveals their agenda as being 'anti-west' [1]". I can understand how someone would find it insulting, but in the article we are discussing, it is descriptive and not pejorative.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45298741

Re: AI tools are making the world look weird

#177

Post by _DeadFred_ »

sho_hn wrote: post #129
adwn wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea why this is getting downvoted. Everything I wrote is true and directly on topic. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

I know we are not supposed to talk about karma (and therefore a downvote ironically may be appropriate on this comment), but I agree vote behaviour on HN lately shows a still-small but growing tendency toward suppressive downvoting. This seems to happen generally for two reasons: Even a neutral comment is evaluated for what stance it most closely aligns with, and then downvoted to suppress the opposing view just in c…

Not to call you out for your post but I think this is a result of the 'just asking questions' culture we live in where asking questions online has been weaponized/agenda driven. Even the person asking the question admits their question could be interpreted this way first thing: "and I don't mean this combatively)" and even their caveat these days is sadly easily interpreted as 'I'm just asking questions'. Just look at how the start of my first sentence changes the tone.

The question asker doesn't know the work, doesn't respond to what OP said, but instead challenges OP about methodology, and leads with 'I know this question can seem combative'. Then falls to 'do you think, in your heart of hearts'... how does that question and asking for assessment align with the 'I'm all about methodology' stance of the question asker? It sounds a like a 'core values' assessment/assignment not a 'the room for error in this study' assessment is being asked for. The question on the whole:

'I know this can sound combative but I'm just asking questions. Given other things have been bad and knowing nothing of this being talked about, but pointing out it's probably completely wrong (based on nothing but X other thing is wrong).... really, in your heart, do you believe you are coming from integrity?'

That sounds toxic AF.

Personally as a relative newcomer here it seems like there is a lot of this 'just asking questions' on HN.

Edit: Throttled. I pointed out how I saw the post could be (mis)interpreted. Yeah, that necessitates me replaying it back how it could be (mis)interpreted. That is valid when my point is about... how posts could be (mis)interpreted resulting in a poorer quality of discussion. Sorry if you didn't understand the point I was trying to get across. I didn't say the interpretation was valid, I said here is how posts like the one the person I responded to referenced can derail discussion in an era of 'just asking questions'. Zero disingenuousness nor unconstructive on my part and it's wild you can't see that. My post was about better quality discussion using the message the person I responded to used. Yours is about calling me specifically out. Which is more 'constructive'?

Re: AI tools are making the world look weird

#178

Post by 131012 »

sofixa wrote: post #128
cpursley wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> I noticed years ago that majority Catholic and Orthodox countries are generally less prosperous than Protestant countries Based on what? I can't think of a single pairing of Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox countries that genuinely had a similar enough history, geography, geopolitical situation to be able to compare them easily. Maybe the closest would be Belgium and Netherlands, but even then Belgium spent a few h…

Trust by Francis Fukuyama explores this relation if you want more meat than comments on a board.

Re: AI tools are making the world look weird

#179

Post by soiltype »

derefr wrote: post #10
psidium wrote: post #5

Can’t recommend the book that coined this acronym enough: The WEIRDest People in the World Book by Joseph Henrich. It is such an eye-opening piece that explains so much of the world around us. He’s an anthropologist that goes into the psychology of it all. Touching on points like how religion plays a part in shaping the America of today and even how humans are worst at discerning faces today because we need to discer…

> One of the wildest claims in there is the one that the north of Italy is more developed today because it was part of the Holy Roman Empire while the south wasn’t. About a thousand years separate these and he finds effects still. I would note that the north and south of Italy have very different geography and climate. Which can be upstream of all sorts of things, culturally. The geography of Italy's two halves suppo…

> (Rome itself — the exception that proves the rule

You really have to explain specifically what you mean by this phrase, or else it's typically just saying you don't actually understand the rule or the exception.

It sounds like you're claiming Rome succeeded for reasons that overcame its geographical disadvantages, and due to this growth protected itself from naval invasions. But Rome was not a maritime power during its early republic period, let alone earlier. So why didn't Carthage or anyone else just sail upriver (Rome was not on the coast, just to clarify the context) and destroy Rome? How did Rome succeed in the first place to become a maritime power capable of defying southern Italy's geography?

Re: AI tools are making the world look weird

#180

Post by adwn »

psidium wrote: post #169
adwn wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t think all of it is shallow, especially given the format: the book is mostly a prose re-writing of the author’s own peer-reviewed anthropology scientific papers. That's not the issue. The replication crisis is the phenomenon that many scientific results and conclusions which originate from serious, peer-reviewed research, couldn't be replicated by other researchers, and sometimes not even by the original sci…

But I said the book does offer replication studies in different populations in different continents, albeit from the same author

I know, and I guess it's better than nothing, but replications by the original author don't exactly grant the same level of confidence as independent replications.
Post reply on HN