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

Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

righttoprivacyact.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 79 posts

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#51

Post by hananova »

ddtaylor wrote: post #50
tolerance wrote: post #27

What percentage of this is lawslop? https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/tree/main/tests There’s clearly a non-trivial level of LLM involvement. I want to say 100% lawslop. I can’t figure out who’s behind this to ascertain their qualifications and acumen in the space. 100% seems like a safe place to start speculating from but I can be talked down.

I think this kind of argument is a modified version of an ad-hominem attack. When you disagree with an argument, you are supposed to address the argument itself, not the thing making the argument.

Ad-hominem (literally: "to the person") requires a person on the other side of the argument. This wasn't made or written by a person, thus ad-hominem does not apply.

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#52

Post by watwut »

ddtaylor wrote: post #50
tolerance wrote: post #27

What percentage of this is lawslop? https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/tree/main/tests There’s clearly a non-trivial level of LLM involvement. I want to say 100% lawslop. I can’t figure out who’s behind this to ascertain their qualifications and acumen in the space. 100% seems like a safe place to start speculating from but I can be talked down.

I think this kind of argument is a modified version of an ad-hominem attack. When you disagree with an argument, you are supposed to address the argument itself, not the thing making the argument.

That went out of window and provably failed even before LLM. The strategy of flooding everything with cheap false claims and arguments while demanding that the opponent spends increasing amount of effort and time was a success even before. It became worst with LLM.

So, no, you are making the claim, first prove it is worth any of that effort.

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#53

Post by api »

ddtaylor wrote: post #50
tolerance wrote: post #27

What percentage of this is lawslop? https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/tree/main/tests There’s clearly a non-trivial level of LLM involvement. I want to say 100% lawslop. I can’t figure out who’s behind this to ascertain their qualifications and acumen in the space. 100% seems like a safe place to start speculating from but I can be talked down.

I think this kind of argument is a modified version of an ad-hominem attack. When you disagree with an argument, you are supposed to address the argument itself, not the thing making the argument.

Made me coin a term.

Ad hominllm: the dismissal of a work or an argument because an LLM was, or may have been, used in its construction or editing.

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#54

Post by grumpymuppet »

hananova wrote: post #51
ddtaylor wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this kind of argument is a modified version of an ad-hominem attack. When you disagree with an argument, you are supposed to address the argument itself, not the thing making the argument.

Ad-hominem (literally: "to the person") requires a person on the other side of the argument. This wasn't made or written by a person, thus ad-hominem does not apply.

Presumably why the person you are responding to called it a modified ad hominem.

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#55

Post by thbb123 »

dotancohen wrote: post #40
maxrmk wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My desire is to be able to use those products without paying for them. And to use them with friends and family members that can't pay for them.

Sure, and while we're at it how about busses that you don't have to pay for? And food? And housing, why not?

In Europe, more and more public transportation is free, or at least very heavily subsidized

The costs are covered by local taxes, to curb on individual vehicle use and reduce congestion. After some hiccups, some cities manage good economies of scale where everybody, including the environment, wins.

As for housing and food, while there the incentive structure is more fragile, at least, we have homeless shelters that are free, and once again, everybody wins: the costs are very low, and cities are far safer and cleaner.

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#56

Post by ddtaylor »

watwut wrote: post #52
ddtaylor wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this kind of argument is a modified version of an ad-hominem attack. When you disagree with an argument, you are supposed to address the argument itself, not the thing making the argument.

That went out of window and provably failed even before LLM. The strategy of flooding everything with cheap false claims and arguments while demanding that the opponent spends increasing amount of effort and time was a success even before. It became worst with LLM. So, no, you are making the claim, first prove it is worth any of that effort.

This seems like a chicken and egg problem.

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#57

Post by samrus »

hananova wrote: post #51
ddtaylor wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this kind of argument is a modified version of an ad-hominem attack. When you disagree with an argument, you are supposed to address the argument itself, not the thing making the argument.

Ad-hominem (literally: "to the person") requires a person on the other side of the argument. This wasn't made or written by a person, thus ad-hominem does not apply.

Thats a bit pedantic. Youre still arguing against an entity rather than addressing the argument.

If you prompted an LLM to make a PSA that people should brush their teeth, is it a fair to argue that brushing your teeth is bad because an LLM made the argument?

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#58

Post by samrus »

maxrmk wrote: post #18

The bill bans making access to a service contingent on consent. This would kill Gmail, Google Maps, Facebook, Instagram and basically every other ad supported service. Making subscriptions the only consumer business model would be bad imo.

[dead]

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#59

Post by samrus »

maxrmk wrote: post #33
edoceo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) It wouldn't kill them. They would have to change their business model though. b) Shouldn't our laws prioritize natural-persons over corporate desires? Companies don't have a right to a specific revenue model. Humans should have a right to their own identity.

My desire is to be able to use those products without paying for them. And to use them with friends and family members that can't pay for them.

If you desired to inject heroin into your veins, that wouldnt mean we should decriminalize it

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#60

Post by samrus »

thbb123 wrote: post #55
dotancohen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and while we're at it how about busses that you don't have to pay for? And food? And housing, why not?

In Europe, more and more public transportation is free, or at least very heavily subsidized The costs are covered by local taxes, to curb on individual vehicle use and reduce congestion. After some hiccups, some cities manage good economies of scale where everybody, including the environment, wins. As for housing and food, while there the incentive structure is more fragile, at least, we have homeless shelters that a…

If transportation, housing, and food were paid for by giving private corporations and they demanded to incade our privacy as payment then i would be against that too actually
Post reply on HN