61–70 of 245 posts
[flagged]
No, you didn't see anything. I've been writing like that since very long before LLMs did it, mostly because I'm considerably older than that. I'm sure if you go back to 2008, the first year that I participated in HN you'll find plenty of examples.
And when you critizise AI you get downvotes. Non-AI posts rarely get any upvotes. Sad times...
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive,...
this sums up the subject this article is about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weird what counts as "negative" on HN. Question something politely? You're being negative. Criticize something? Negative. Describe it in a way someone might interpret badly? Negative. Sometimes it seems like anything that's not breathless, unconditional praise is considered being negative and curmudgeonly. It's turning into a "positive thoughts only" zone.
There is a relevant number of power users that also flag everything that is critical of big tech and won’t fit their frame as well, sending it into oblivion, regardless of the community rules and clear support from other voting members. But also calling that out is seen as negative and not constructive, and there goes any attempt at a discussion.
* Commercial influence on computing has proven to be so problematic one wonders if the entire stack is a net negative, it shouldn’t even be a question.
And when you critizise AI you get downvotes. Non-AI posts rarely get any upvotes. Sad times...
Ironic you think that. Usually saying anything positive about AI gets you downvotes, and critics are upvoted. People even post and upvote articles from Gary Marcus and Ed Newton-Rex without a hint of jest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you didn't see anything. I've been writing like that since very long before LLMs did it, mostly because I'm considerably older than that. I'm sure if you go back to 2008, the first year that I participated in HN you'll find plenty of examples.
Perhaps you and those of your ilk are the source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It certainly looks like thinking
And magic tricks look like magic. Turns out they’re not magical. I am so floored that at least half of this community, usually skeptical to a fault, evangelizes LLMs so ardently. Truly blows my mind. I’m open to them becoming more than a statistical token predictor, and I think it would be really neat to see that happen. They’re nowhere close to anything other than a next-token-predictor.
What I found insightful about this article was the framing of another article cited. > " This pretty negative post topping Hacker News last month sparked these questions, and I decided to find some answers, of course, using AI" The pretty negative post cited is https://tomrenner.com/posts/llm-inevitabilism/ . I went ahead to read it, and found it, imo, fair. It's not making any direct pretty negative claims about AI,…
Weird what counts as "negative" on HN. Question something politely? You're being negative. Criticize something? Negative. Describe it in a way someone might interpret badly? Negative. Sometimes it seems like anything that's not breathless, unconditional praise is considered being negative and curmudgeonly. It's turning into a "positive thoughts only" zone.