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

Repetitive negative thinking associated with cognitive decline in older adults

bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 261 posts

Re: Repetitive negative thinking associated with cognitive decline in older adults

#251

Post by ninetyninenine »

jncfhnb wrote: post #245
ninetyninenine wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You inserted yourself into my context. I brought the topic up and you responded. Don’t apologize to me if it’s fake. Additionally Please try to follow what’s actually going on instead of making stuff up.

My dude you’re pivoting to try and argue that there are differences, even if the differences are immaterial and even if there’s no statistical evidence to support your claim. I don’t give a shit if you believe yourself to be part of the (immaterially) superior race.

There's no statistical evidence to support your claim either.

It's not about race, it's about facts. Like I said in another comment, Jewish people have the highest measurable average IQ, and they are "White".

I think you should walk away. You brought racism into the conversation while I'm just arguing facts. I never made a claim asians were "superior" and I'm NOT from an asian country with the highest IQ either.

Re: Repetitive negative thinking associated with cognitive decline in older adults

#253

Post by ninetyninenine »

tptacek wrote: post #249
ninetyninenine wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Sorry, but you're wrong about this: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

I disagree. This is not a hard rule. I'm willing to bet if the moderators saw this they would be ok with this instance of it.

This would be the fault of the moderators for not directly putting it in the rules if that was the case.

Though I doubt they'd be ok with this entire thread as it's heated and the topic is flamewar-like even though I tried to direct it in a different direction initially. It already went off the rails with the other guy once he told me I was dumb and trying to establish race superiority among asians. Too late. I think I'll get warned or banned.

Anyway, I'm not disguising the content human generated. Additionally All I'm doing is asking the LLM to cite and summarize citations which you asked for. Manually finding those citations are tedious.

My opinions and thoughts are still human written and not AI generated.

What I find incredulous is that you have some problem with content that's AI generated even if it's actually true and even it's just flat summaries of citations. Like I told the LLM to find specific resources and summarize studies I have already seen so you don't have to go through the entire paper and you have a huge problem with that? Fine. You can just refuse to engage. Commenting on it is also "against the rules" per your link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44808351

I mean if you want you can flag my post and vote it down. I think it's extreme and an ass hole move so I don't do that to people I have different opinions with. It's up to you.

Re: Repetitive negative thinking associated with cognitive decline in older adults

#254

Post by tptacek »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #253
tptacek wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but you're wrong about this: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

I disagree. This is not a hard rule. I'm willing to bet if the moderators saw this they would be ok with this instance of it. This would be the fault of the moderators for not directly putting it in the rules if that was the case. Though I doubt they'd be ok with this entire thread as it's heated and the topic is flamewar-like even though I tried to direct it in a different direction initially. It already went off th…

"Please don't post AI-generated comments, or any generated comments" seems pretty clear to me. My point stands: I'm not interested in watching dueling ChatGPT contexts and I don't think anyone else is either. I can just write what I know about this issue into a GPT5 session and say "change my mind" and get all those 1970s cites myself.

Re: Repetitive negative thinking associated with cognitive decline in older adults

#255

Post by jncfhnb »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #251
jncfhnb wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dude you’re pivoting to try and argue that there are differences, even if the differences are immaterial and even if there’s no statistical evidence to support your claim. I don’t give a shit if you believe yourself to be part of the (immaterially) superior race.

There's no statistical evidence to support your claim either. It's not about race, it's about facts. Like I said in another comment, Jewish people have the highest measurable average IQ, and they are "White". I think you should walk away. You brought racism into the conversation while I'm just arguing facts. I never made a claim asians were "superior" and I'm NOT from an asian country with the highest IQ either.

[flagged]

Re: Repetitive negative thinking associated with cognitive decline in older adults

#256

Post by ninetyninenine »

tptacek wrote: post #254
ninetyninenine wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. This is not a hard rule. I'm willing to bet if the moderators saw this they would be ok with this instance of it. This would be the fault of the moderators for not directly putting it in the rules if that was the case. Though I doubt they'd be ok with this entire thread as it's heated and the topic is flamewar-like even though I tried to direct it in a different direction initially. It already went off th…

"Please don't post AI-generated comments, or any generated comments" seems pretty clear to me. My point stands: I'm not interested in watching dueling ChatGPT contexts and I don't think anyone else is either. I can just write what I know about this issue into a GPT5 session and say "change my mind" and get all those 1970s cites myself.

But you didn't address any of my points.

I literally said to you that chatGPT is JUST citations. My comments are my own, you can respond to my comments can you not? What if I used AI to spell check and repair grammar? End of the world and you can't respond? Are people so against AI that they lose all common sense?

>"Please don't post AI-generated comments, or any generated comments" seems pretty clear to me.

Did he say please don't post AI-generated citations? Is he referring to the entire post or all comments? Why not make it an official rule on the rules page. What does Dang say about this? Seems unclear. I think you're just being deliberate.

Bro. You don't need to respond if you don't want to. My citations are still there. You asked for it, you got it. You don't like it? I'm not going to manually do what chatgpt ALREADY did so conversation is over if you don't want to continue.

Re: Repetitive negative thinking associated with cognitive decline in older adults

#257

Post by ninetyninenine »

jncfhnb wrote: post #255
ninetyninenine wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no statistical evidence to support your claim either. It's not about race, it's about facts. Like I said in another comment, Jewish people have the highest measurable average IQ, and they are "White". I think you should walk away. You brought racism into the conversation while I'm just arguing facts. I never made a claim asians were "superior" and I'm NOT from an asian country with the highest IQ either.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Repetitive negative thinking associated with cognitive decline in older adults

#258

Post by tptacek »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #256
tptacek wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Please don't post AI-generated comments, or any generated comments" seems pretty clear to me. My point stands: I'm not interested in watching dueling ChatGPT contexts and I don't think anyone else is either. I can just write what I know about this issue into a GPT5 session and say "change my mind" and get all those 1970s cites myself.

But you didn't address any of my points. I literally said to you that chatGPT is JUST citations. My comments are my own, you can respond to my comments can you not? What if I used AI to spell check and repair grammar? End of the world and you can't respond? Are people so against AI that they lose all common sense? >"Please don't post AI-generated comments, or any generated comments" seems pretty clear to me. Did he s…

Which of those papers did you actually read and which did you find compelling?

Re: Repetitive negative thinking associated with cognitive decline in older adults

#259

Post by tptacek »

tptacek wrote: post #258
ninetyninenine wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you didn't address any of my points. I literally said to you that chatGPT is JUST citations. My comments are my own, you can respond to my comments can you not? What if I used AI to spell check and repair grammar? End of the world and you can't respond? Are people so against AI that they lose all common sense? >"Please don't post AI-generated comments, or any generated comments" seems pretty clear to me. Did he s…

Which of those papers did you actually read and which did you find compelling?

On second thought, I'm noticing that we're the only people reading this, and that this thread is mostly pretty uncivil and gnarly, and I feel bad for contributing to it staying alive, so maybe we pick this up some other time.

Re: Repetitive negative thinking associated with cognitive decline in older adults

#260

Post by ninetyninenine »

tptacek wrote: post #259
tptacek wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which of those papers did you actually read and which did you find compelling?

On second thought, I'm noticing that we're the only people reading this, and that this thread is mostly pretty uncivil and gnarly, and I feel bad for contributing to it staying alive, so maybe we pick this up some other time.

The thread is already buried. Like I said, it's your call whether you want to engage. Either way, no loss. If I actually manually wrote down those citations so SERVE your request it would've been a massive waste of my time and it would be rude for you not to respond.

Good thing I used AI to assist me. I knew you'd leave. Mainly because there's really no solid evidence so a lot of this will go in circles. Good day sir.

Post reply on HN