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

Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

#41

Post by gitonup »

phtrivier wrote: post #39
gitonup wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot to unpack here. > that politician trusted some poorly paid staff - I assume that politician is the one / main person in charge of doling out payments. Does that mean they share guilt/responsibility for the result? > to write a boring procedural speech while he was doing something (hopefully more useful). - Is procedure not his job as a politician? - If not, what is his job / the more useful thing? > One…

Of course they share responsibility. Pay scraps for slop, expect slop. The more useful job of a politician may be similar to how managers in general have a "more useful" part of their jobs then publishing status report. "Gathering information, making decisions, nudging others." Lobbying for their constituency (at best) or the people who paid for his campaign (at worse). Or, heavens forbid, writing legislation on a to…

> [post 1] "One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible"

> [post 2] "Of course they share responsibility."

I'm not following.

We're also still disregarding the fact that none of us can even prove that it was one of his staff that did this and not him, but your OP is worded like it's a given it was staff.

> The more useful job of a politician may be similar to how managers in general have a "more useful" part of their jobs then publishing status report. "Gathering information, making decisions, nudging others." Lobbying for their constituency (at best) or the people who paid for his campaign (at worse).

> Or, heavens forbid, writing legislation on a topic that he knows something about, as opposed to whatever crap he had to slop about.

Not sure about you, but I often find my job will oftentimes not always include the things I have the most experience in, and I'm expected to be able to rise to the occasion because I was hired to do so.

> As I said, responsibility has to be shared.

You said that? Because I read "one of them is guilty, the other one is responsible." If you mean that responsibility is synonymous here, why the distinction?

--

Revisiting my original questions that have gone unanswered:

- Is procedure not his job as a politician?

Given that you appear to have instead answered "If not, what is his job / the more useful thing?", I'm assuming "No", to which I disagree. If your answer is that "yes, procedure is part of his job", then I assert he failed to do his job here, regardless of how boring you find that job to be personally.

If the guilty/responsible distinction still holds, I'm still unclear as to what applies to whom.

Re: Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

#42

Post by dredmorbius »

arionmiles wrote: post #2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MU6q9G0Sf0 I would rather speak to this man than anyone reading anything AI-written

For those not grasping the joke: the response is a largely incomprehensible mix of Hindi (I think) and (very-heavily accented) English. From an Indian news programme.

Shades of "Prisencolinensinainciusol":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisencolinensinainciusol>

Re: Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

#43

Post by dredmorbius »

big-chungus4 wrote: post #38
nvme0n1p1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're absolutely right. Sure, I'll help you write a Hacker News comment explaining why politicians should have functional mental faculties and a coherent understanding of what they do during the course of their jobs and how their actions affect their constituents.

None of that requires you to be a good public speaker or speech writer

You may have missed the joke that the comment you're responding to is written as if it were an AI response to your original question.

(I'm presuming it, and the other comments of this subthread, are humanly generated. Which may be being generous....)

Re: Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

#44

Post by dredmorbius »

Toutouxc wrote: post #28

I feel like the world has lost 30 IQ points over the last two years. I can’t think of a better way to describe it, the dumbing down of everything is palpable and accelerating.

And it had already lost about 30 points through mobile devices and touchscreens, as I've commented before:

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37521911>, also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787831> and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38659367>

For the past several years (since at least 2020, if not a few years earlier), I've commented/posted to HN exclusively from desktop systems.

The bad news is that this is as good as it gets ;-)

Re: Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

#45

Post by dredmorbius »

Barrin92 wrote: post #40
mmarian wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ levels are same as before, it's just easier to spot differences.

IQ levels have decreased in the 21st century, it's known as the reverse Flynn effect, Norway did a large scale study on almost a million people because they have a lot of military data and accounting for genetics IQ peaked for people roughly born in the late 70s and has been declining since. We've actually wiped out a fair amount of 20th century gains in intelligence.

Oddly: this coincides with the period in which leaded petrol has largely been phased out on most countries. The use of lead in motor-vehicle fuel is though to have shaved a few points off IQ by itself.

Much as with some other widespread phenomena that come to mind, it's an observed trend the reverse of what might otherwise be expected.

Re: Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

#47

Post by iamnothere »

dredmorbius wrote: post #45
Barrin92 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ levels have decreased in the 21st century, it's known as the reverse Flynn effect, Norway did a large scale study on almost a million people because they have a lot of military data and accounting for genetics IQ peaked for people roughly born in the late 70s and has been declining since. We've actually wiped out a fair amount of 20th century gains in intelligence.

Oddly: this coincides with the period in which leaded petrol has largely been phased out on most countries. The use of lead in motor-vehicle fuel is though to have shaved a few points off IQ by itself. Much as with some other widespread phenomena that come to mind, it's an observed trend the reverse of what might otherwise be expected .

Lead exposure can damage the reproductive system, so perhaps it’s to be expected if a whole generation of parents were exposed to leaded gasoline.

Theoretically this effect would wear off with the next generation, unless there was durable damage to genetics that gets passed on. A cursory search suggests this may be possible, but I’m not a biologist or geneticist.

Re: Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

#48

Post by phtrivier »

gitonup wrote: post #41
phtrivier wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they share responsibility. Pay scraps for slop, expect slop. The more useful job of a politician may be similar to how managers in general have a "more useful" part of their jobs then publishing status report. "Gathering information, making decisions, nudging others." Lobbying for their constituency (at best) or the people who paid for his campaign (at worse). Or, heavens forbid, writing legislation on a to…

> [post 1] "One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible" > [post 2] "Of course they share responsibility." I'm not following. We're also still disregarding the fact that none of us can even prove that it was one of his staff that did this and not him, but your OP is worded like it's a given it was staff. > The more useful job of a politician may be similar to how managers in general have a "more useful" part…

> [post 1] "One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible"

> [post 2] "Of course they share responsibility."

> As I said, responsibility has to be shared.

Fair enough. I should have written that they share _blame_. I meant to highlight the difference between doing the bad deed, and being in a position where you have to take public responsibility for the bad deed.

> We're also still disregarding the fact that none of us can even prove that it was one of his staff that did this and not him, but your OP is worded like it's a given it was staff.

I have obviously no proof, but I'm pretty confident this is what happened.

The other option is that this very old busy man took the time to write this boring speech himself, also has the proficiency to use an LLM to write the boring speech, and that it's just a coincidence that he seems to be discovering the boring speach for the first time as he reads it in a boring procedural session.

Who knows ? Maybe that's what happened.

I've known underpaid parliamentary assistants, and I've known very old busy men, and the scenario where the very old busy man leaves that speech-writing to his parliamentary assistants , and discovers the speech for the first time as he roboticatly utters it in a session where he expects no one to listen, seems _vastly_ more realistic to me.

> Not sure about you, but I often find my job will oftentimes not always include the things I have the most experience in, and I'm expected to be able to rise to the occasion because I was hired to do so.

I suspect your job does not come with money to hire a staff to handle the menial and procedural parts of the job.

MPs _do_ have a budget for that, and the expectation that some people way under they paygrade will work on this kind of stuff.

> - Is procedure not his job as a politician?

I suspect we disagree on that, but to me, considering this kind of boring procedural talk as "part of a politician job" is akin to considering that "producing x64 assembly code" is part of a C-programmer's job.

Of course I expect him to delegate this part. And if there is a bug in the compiler (or, more likely, if there is a bug in one of the libs he's using), then who is to blame / guilty / responsible ?

Re: Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

#49

Post by big-chungus4 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #43
big-chungus4 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that requires you to be a good public speaker or speech writer

You may have missed the joke that the comment you're responding to is written as if it were an AI response to your original question. (I'm presuming it, and the other comments of this subthread, are humanly generated. Which may be being generous....)

It was but I'm not sure what in my reply indicates missing it. The comment still made a point and I replied to it

Re: Politician reads AI prompt during assembly

#50

Post by tptacek »

Barrin92 wrote: post #40
mmarian wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ levels are same as before, it's just easier to spot differences.

IQ levels have decreased in the 21st century, it's known as the reverse Flynn effect, Norway did a large scale study on almost a million people because they have a lot of military data and accounting for genetics IQ peaked for people roughly born in the late 70s and has been declining since. We've actually wiped out a fair amount of 20th century gains in intelligence.

"Accounting for genetics"?
Post reply on HN