601–610 of 889 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I repeat > I don't know why [This person done bad actions] has to be a political statement these days, but thems the brakes here. Thanks for proving my point.
You can always go back to Reddit
I don't "move back", only move forward to the next community. Until that is compromised. Then the cycle repeats anew.
I wonder which community, if any, will break that cycle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anthropic, maybe, but what is the philosophical niche of OpenAI? Their only consistent philosophical position about AI is "let's make more money".
I think OpenAI is more of an aesthetic. Very... Apple-like, polished, with an eye towards making really cool stuff. And aesthetics are a type of philosophy. This is less noble than how Anthropic presents themselves but still much more attractive to many than XAI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These kind of HN submissions test how fair discussions can be here: > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. Reference: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Elon is literally a political figure. How is one supposed to discuss his actions without invoking his politics?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These kind of HN submissions test how fair discussions can be here: > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. Reference: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. That ship has sailed a long time ago, with the approval of the moderation itself.
It's is a complex and hard question, but the principles we apply to it have been around for a long time and are consistent with the site guidelines. If they weren't, we'd change the latter.
I've explained all of this many times. If you, or anyone, would like to know how we approach the question, you could start here:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But then what are you arguing? Geographic location determines IQ? (An inherently flawed measurement itself)
I'm not arguing anything other than the fact that Wikipedia is biased. Though I will say it's beyond argument that geographic ancestry has an effect on IQ on a statistical group level (the reasons for this are what's debated), and that IQ is the best measurement of G that we have.
dang wrote: > You may not owe you-know-whom better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. This is like telling a country that’s being invaded that they can only respond with strongly worded letters when their enemy is dropping tactical nukes on them. But hey, Paul Graham and cronies benefit from the status quo as much as any other billionaire, so let’s not rock the boat, right? The word “co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Are you suggesting that academia and all of the other actual places people who learn and know stuff for a living being full of leftists is some conspiracy against you and the right wing? Touch grass, my dude. These are the thoughts of someone who spends too much time on X.
The fact that the elite and knowledge workers in this country are generally more left-leaning is pretty evident. The right wingers in these ranks make up a distinctive subgroup. These are the thoughts of pretty much everyone everywhere in the country and this becomes apparent if you ask randoms on the street, or you have attended college lectures, or have used a dictionary, or have read wikipedia talk pages, or have compared news sources.
Being a welder or a farmer or a carpenter requires "learning and knowing stuff". These right-wing associated jobs just don't produce knowledge for other people as an end product. That is what makes knowledge work an elite position; not everyone has the luxury of doing knowledge work.
I take issue with your implication that we should all bow down to knowledge workers because they know better. The knowledge workers are the issue here. They are the subject of discussion. This is like when the police investigate themselves and find no wrongdoing.
If we found that the population of professional athletes became dominated by a certain cultural ingroup, and eventually we failed to bring home gold medals at the olympics, we might be correct to question the state of our meritocracy wrt athleticism. Regardless of what people who "improve and use their bodies for a living" think.
The US is losing intellectually and technologically to countries like China. I call into question the general legitimacy of our academic and journalistic institutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ethically, if you extend this reasoning, are we not obligated to find a position in the most morally repulsive organization we are aware of, and then coast?
I think there is an implied "given the company you joined turns out to be nonethically aligned"
I don't use it myself, but I feel like the way Grok is integrated into Twitter is a pretty good thing for discussions, as it is certainly a more objective and rational voice than most human participants. I think it's good that people tag @grok if they don't understand something or want an opinion, even if it looks pretty silly to see "@grok is this true" repeated multiple times in replies. That said, Musk's attempts…
Grok is a bot that: 1) sometimes goes mechahitler 2) was trained to be biased against empathy and understanding (because woke). 3) is customized to spout Elon's opinions as fact. Claiming it is "objective and rational" seems like a misjudgement to me. If it really is more objective and rational than the average xitter poster, that says more about that platform than it does about Grok.
I will however note that when I asked ChatGPT for an LLM prompt for truthfulness, it added "never use warm or encouraging language."
It would appear that empathy and truth are in conflict — or at least the machine thinks so!