Native JSON Output from GPT-4

Not to belabor the point but from my perspective you've illustrated the point about cognitive bias: it always feels like the other person started it and did worse ("I feel a bit like a guy Tony Soprano beat up and being forced to apologize afterwards to him for bruising his knuckles") and it always feels like one was merely defending oneself reasonably ("merely expressing distaste"). This is the asymmetry I'm talking about.

As you can imagine, mods get this kind of feedback all the time from all angles. The basic learning it adds up to is that everybody always feels this way. Therefore those feelings are not a reliable compass to navigate by.

This is not a criticism—I appreciate your reply!

Edit:

> forcing people to be saccharine [...] like a simulacrum of an HR department

We definitely don't want that and the site guidelines don't call for that. There is tons of room to make your substantive points thoughtfully without being saccharine. It can take a little bit of reflective work to find that room, though, just because we (humans in general) tend to get locked into binary oppositions.

The best principle to go by is just to ask yourself: is what I'm posting part of a curious conversation? That's the intended spirit of the site. It's possible to tell if you (I don't mean you personally, I mean all of us) are functioning in the range of curiosity and to refrain from posting if you aren't.

It is true that the HN guidelines bring a bit of blandness to discourse because they eliminate the rough-and-tumble debate that can work well in much smaller groups of close peers. But that's because that kind of debate is impossible in a large public forum like HN—it just degenerates immediately into dumb brawls. I've written about this quite a bit if you or anyone wants to read about that:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... (I like that analogy)

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

I think your argument is reasonable from a logical perspective, and I would generally make a similar argument as I would find the template quite persuasive.

However, I, again, feel you're improperly pushing shapes into the shape-board again. Of course, understanding cognitive bias is a fantastic tool to improve human behavior from an engineering perspective, and your argumentum ad numerum is sound.

That being said, you're focusing too much on what my emotional motivation might be rather than looking at the system - do you really think there isn't an element of that dynamic I outlined in an interaction like this? Of course there is.

Anyhow, you know, I don't have the terminology in my back-pocket, but there's definitely a large blind-spot when someone is ignoring the spirit of intellectual curiosity in a positive light rather than a negative one.

In this case, don't you think a tool like mild negative social feedback might be a useful mechanism? Of course, there's a limit, and if such a person were incapable of further insight, they'd probably not be very useful conversants. That's obviously not happening here.

One final thing is relevant here - you just hit on a pretty important point. There is a grit to a certain type of discourse that is actually superior to this discourse, I'd happily accept that point. Why not just transfer the burden of moderation to that point, rather than what you perceive to be the outset? Surely, you'll greatly reduce your number of false positives.

I provide negative social feedback sometimes because I feel it's appropriate. In the future, I probably won't. That being said, it's obvious that I've never sparked a thoughtless brawl, so the tolerance is at least inappropriately adjusted sufficiently to that extent.

what if you don't have product yet, tied product is better than no product

I was thinking more as data for their product org