[bpm140]

About a year ago, I stopped consuming news cold turkey (save technology and movie news [the former work-necessary and the latter a personal vice]). I took the extra step of banning Twitter and Memeorandum at the router level, so that I couldn't revert easily.

I didn't read a single political news story in the ensuing six months. Some of the happiest months of my life. These days I will read the section headlines on Memeorandum if I'm out and about, every week or so. I have found that I no longer have any interest at all in the contents of the stories. Most seem so petty.

I don't honestly give a f*ck if someone on either side of the aisle is caught doing something immoral, because there has been zero consequences during my 50 years of life. The vast majority of power players (politicians, businesspeople and celebrities) get off scott free, so I've just opted out of caring.

So much happier as a result.

[Dalewyn]

One of the most common bit of wisdom I've heard from older folks is to ignore the news. Don't read the newspaper, don't watch TV news, don't listen to radio news, etc.; they all say nothing in them is worth our time.

It's among the most useful piece of advice I've ever had.

[nomilk]

I feel like we're failing to accurately name 'news'.

The vast majority of what is offered as 'news' isn't news at all, it's gossip, schadenfreude, arbitrary drama, and frivolous feel-good stories.

'News' has a ring of plausible importance. I wish we had a more accurate name reflecting its mostly unimportant, worthless, and destructive nature.

[GuardianCaveman]

100% Agree. It's an entire article written about a celebrity or politician's tweet reacting to another celebrity or politician. It's an entire article that talks about some filler setting up the background, the actual embedded tweet, a paragraph or two quoting that tweet with filler in it, then perhaps a second reaction tweet or a bunch of tweets that random people responded with either positive/negative or both depending on what the author is trying to achieve or influence.

[lynx23]

I think you are drawing an arbitrary line to defend an industry that doesnt deserve it at all.

In my book, even the supposedly important news are pure poison for the individual, and at the end of the day, unimportant as well.

People that need to push a new or current narrative will likely disagree, but that is predictable. They dont want their hate-channel to be closed down.

[labster]

But if we take all of those stories out of the news cycle, the only national news we’d have left is The Onion.

[Dalewyn]

I unironically and sincerely believe The Onion is one of, if not the, the best sources of journalism in our time.

[Gigachad]

I’ve observed that so much of the news is published before the facts are even out. In a race to be first, they present half a story that hasn’t been verified yet. So you are left to either be outraged preemptively or just ignore the story entirely as it’s currently useless.

[wolverine876]

Could you give some recent examples, especially from news organizations with leading reptuations (NY Times, Washington Post, etc.)?

To a degree, that's what journalists should do: They are not writing a history book. They can't wait until all the facts are out or we'd never know if someone was arrested or accused until the trial was over.

[lynx23]

reptuations, that was a freudian slip, right? Reputation is obviously in the eye of the beholder... What is one persons reputable source, is a money making machine without conscience for others.

[wolverine876]

People can fabricate whatever they want. They can call a leading newspaper a child kidnapping ring. But reputation refers to something else - there is truth and people do tend strongly toward it; people make functional (not optimal) decisions as a group - that's how democratic self-governent has worked far, far better than any other form of government.

It's philosophical theory that human judgment could be just completely arbitrary and that all these arbitrary opinions have equal weight. But it's cheap theory - not good enough for the first day of philosophy class - and transparently wrong, and has nothing to do with reality. We (you included) make imperfect but not random judgments all day every day, using many skills and inputs.

> that was a freudian slip, right?

Your assertion isn't about Freudian slips.

[vachina]

Yeah, they use words like “allegedly” or “according to unnamed sources” to free themselves from liability in the event when what they report turns out to be inaccurate. In that case might as well not report the news then if they’re not sure.

[MandieD]

As the tagline for one of HN’s self-consciously frivolous ancestors says, “It’s not news, it’s Fark!”

[Dalewyn]

>I wish we had a more accurate name

Propaganda.

[lynx23]

This!

[haimez]

News is just what’s “New”. It’s name is already prefectly descriptive :)

[siva7]

Very true but does HN count? Would you be happier without your daily influx of GPT news and tech layoffs?

[pdimitar]

Over the course of the last 3 years I found myself clicking on less and less HN stories. This place definitely feels like it lost the inventor spirit and the clever "how to" articles. A lot of stuff is either political or has very close political outcomes, and the rest is blind hype (ChatGPT won't revolutionize almost anything, and I'll stand by my words, bookmark this comment and show it to me in 5 years, I dare you). Let's not forget the yet-another-500-comments thread arguing pointlessly about whether startups are a good format or not. Or office vs. remote. And several others (but they are not many and it does feel like a tool a la ChatGPT could have generated them).

Today I've gotten much bigger value for my time when reading about various CLI tools that process and ingest / export data (recent thread about `miller`) than all of the above, combined.

HN, I feel, became more popular, and that has hurt its quality. So yes, I started reducing my consumption of it as well. I treat it like all other news sites 99% of the time, and I am right to do so at least 90% of them. I barely find 2-3 good articles per week these days.

Soon I might start checking HN biweekly because the value proposition is just not there.

[robswc]

>ChatGPT won't revolutionize almost anything, and I'll stand by my words, bookmark this comment and show it to me in 5 years, I dare you

1. I'll actually take you up on this, because I'm interested to re-visit the discourse around launch, 5 years from now :)

2. I do agree it's overhyped to a degree. I think it will revolutionize _some_ things but it could turn out like VR. I do use it every day and I don't see a reason not to... I guess we'll see what the future holds!

[pdimitar]

My problem with the hyped up stuff, ChatGPT in particular, is that AI actually does not exist.

The practitioners of the area of course have a vested interest to argue until the end of days that ACTUALLY AI does equal ML/DL and stuff but I am like "I see no Skynet so get off my back, we have no AI and that's that". :D

But, I guess in 5 years we could argue whether certain progresses are indeed attributed to ChatGPT or is it something else entirely!

[CamperBob2]

If you don't know how your program works, in the sense that you don't know how it arrived at the answer it gave you, IMHO that's as good a reason as any to call it "AI."

The days of understanding our own code are rapidly coming to an end. As developers, we now have the same problem that the mathematical community has had to deal with for some time, as proofs become complex enough to demand large chunks of peoples' careers to comprehend and evaluate.

Prompts may or may not be the next revolution in the graphic arts, but they will be the next revolution in programming languages. I've seen more than enough to conclude that.

[netsroht]

This is why I prefer the term "weak AI". Weak AI is specifically trained to solve tasks whereas strong AI can teach itself to solve new tasks.

Whether humans are able to create strong AI is a philosophical question: While some argue that's not possible (can we be Gods?), others argue that this is the next logical evolutionary step.

Let's see if we can at least mimic strong AI when we let LLMs connect to external systems (internet, money, more energy, etc) and specifically allow themselves to fine-tune or train new NNs in general.

Time will tell.

[galaxyLogic]

It's very artificial you know. There's this connotation with the word "artificial" that it is not real, but artificial.

[username3]

Can you favorite the 2-3 good articles you find, so we can follow your recommendations?

https://news.ycombinator.com/favorites?id=pdimitar

[pdimitar]

Eh, favorites to me really means favorites, meaning I don't want too much in there.

[IIAOPSW]

Replying here so I have a url for the remindme bot. see you in 5 years.

[x49asvk]

See you in 5 years! Though I almost agree with ChatGPT not revolutionalizing anything.

[IIAOPSW]

Depends how loosely we interpret this. Do we mean online AI language models which are part of a continuous lineage tracing back to the present chatGPT will not have revolutionized anything, or do we mean that OpenAI and their product line known as chatGPT in particular will not have revolutionized anything? Let's disambiguate now so no one says we are equivocating in 5 years. I'm understanding it to mean the former.

[Dalewyn]

Yup. I ignore 99% of the threads that come by here, and I wish I could do that without bothering to read the clickbaity (and generally sensationally false) headlines.

[hot_gril]

I ignore a lot of the big topics. Layoffs don't concern me beyond just knowing that they're happening.

[hot_gril]

(and of course, not getting laid off)

[collinvandyck76]

Not as much in my opinion. True, there are spikes of negative and cynical HN threads, but it's not nearly as consistently sustained as general news media.

[RockRobotRock]

HN definitely counts

[flippinburgers]

HN has changed a lot. As others have stated there is a lot of politics injected that I couldn't care less about.

[LoganDark]

Going too far in the other direction can be pretty annoying, too, though.

I'm autistic and vehemently ignore and reject most pieces of news, especially political, and that causes tons of terrible things to happen whenever some sort of spoiler gets out and I happen to see it.

It's like I'm proud of my great ignorance and having that threatened with mere knowledge sends me into a panic of some sort.

It's not just news. If I say "I don't know what that is lol" to someone, 9 times out of 10 their default response to tell me what it is (if it is some cultural/media thing) is the complete opposite of what I want, which is usually just for the other person to move on without telling.

Knowing things can't be undone, so I strive not to know most things, apparently.

[ianai]

Reply with a response that will get the response you want. If you want them to leave the topic, say something non-engaging like “ok”.

You’re likely to come across not entirely socially acceptable in either case, but that’s probably impossible to counter.

[LoganDark]

> Reply with a response that will get the response you want.

This is something that I understand, but unfortunately can't really perform for some reason. I always have to be... "honest", for lack of a better word. I will always say something that makes things worse for me because it's... just how I feel.

I used to be a pathological liar, and from a young age I had this one friend who was a living lie detector, and they trained it out of me so hard that I now obsessively tell the truth in all situations even when it would be detrimental. ;-;

[ianai]

That’s not quite lying. It’s just not being interested in a topic and being clear but polite about it.

[LoganDark]

...Maybe I didn't do a good enough job of trying to avoid that implication, but the point is not "I don't lie anymore" (implying "that would be a lie"), but rather "I now obsessively tell the truth in all situations even when it would be detrimental" (meaning "that would be omitting things I Absolutely Must Say").

In other words, even if I know just saying "ok" would probably work, I feel the need to somehow "brag" or otherwise disclose my proud ignorance, even if that only results in the literal opposite of what I want.

[whitemary]

I don't think the reason to be informed is to feel good.

[hot_gril]

I went the other way, expanding the news I read to include more international stuff. Really makes me see the partisan stuff in the US as silly, so I don't get heated about it, just lazily keep up with what's happening. International propaganda is easier to spot cause I'm not living in it, which helps me identify it more at home. Anything I consider real news is still too far away to really upset me but important enough that I want to do something about it in a cool-headed way.

And if I weren't doing that, I'd go no-news. That's fine too.

[tasty_freeze]

> Really makes me see the partisan stuff in the US as silly, so I don't get heated about it,

Some of the partisan issues are not silly if you are affected by it. To pick a left issue, if you are gay and would like to marry your partner and get the benefits of such legal recognition, the differences are very consequential. To pick a right issue, if you think that Democrats are voting illegally by the millions, then addressing such threats to Democracy is incredibly important.

There are many other issues where there is a real difference. As an affluent, well educated, older white guy with job security, I'm well insulated from many of the issues. But I have empathy for the people who can't be so aloof; to say "both sides are equally bad" across the board is lazy enlightened centrism.

[hot_gril]

I don't think they're equally bad, only equally silly. They use the same scare tactics every time, and it helps to look past that. Yes I care about the issues.

But how I vote is different: just straight down for whatever is the minority party in my state. Only battleground states get the pandering, and I'll stop doing this if I ever live in a battleground state or they change how voting works. State propositions are a separate thing.

[whitemary]

Same but I just don't vote at all, unless there are any strong trustworthy pro-worker candidates which basically doesn't happen. I will also show up to vote against anti-worker ballot measures, which are more frequent.

[wolverine876]

You'll end up with a many more anti-worker activity if you don't vote. And you will be ignored.

And who will make decisions for you? Who will take on your responsibilities? What other authority is there? When we are children, we can be irresponsibile and our parents ultimately see to them. As adults, there's nobody else; it's just us.

[hot_gril]

One vote doesn't matter, in fact you get negative value out of it cause it takes time and exposes some of your private info to the public. I vote despite that, only cause I want to. There isn't a logical explanation for it.

[timeon]

There are barely any Left-wing policies because there are no Left-wing voters anyway.

[whitemary]

I would go one step further: There is no left wing to speak of in the United States, and if there were then it would only vote for its own democratically disciplined candidates.

[seanmcdirmid]

I only read biz/economic news religiously, like stock market crashes, bank failures, layoffs, etc…because they are more likely to affect me and I can act on that news. Business news also seems to have less bias, since they are judged on their ability to help their consumers make and retain money, rather than just cater to their cognitive biases.

[hot_gril]

Not sure if this is what you're referring to, but there's a lot of "buy now" or "sell now" news that seems like straight up market manipulation.

[dhab]

I think it's a bit extreme. I have developed some heurisitics, which so far are (living in Australia):

* news.com.au = clickbait

* government funded ones = abc, sbs are free and ok

* 9 news, 7 news = negative

* google news = aggregator of mostly negative news

* AFR, Sydney Morning Herald, .. few others = ok

My experience with twitter has been the following:

* I look at some content I subscribed for (humor, or tech related)

* Then it feeds suggestions which spiral downwards into negativity (sometimes extreme - like videos of people getting shot). Soon, I resent twitter and the platform.

Experience with youtube: meh, but not as bad as Twitter as described above

Experience with Quora: better and interesting

Facebook: I avoid

TikTok (my wife's): interesting content - but happy to view via my wife's mobile, since it naturally limits my consumption

Netflix: good and bad, but ok

[ImaCake]

I would say both ABC and SMH often lead with clickbait as well. I sometimes check the headlines and it is almost always a waste of time and emotional energy.

The top article on abc at the moment is clickbaity and niche, although, I give credit to it actually being of relevance to some people.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/leaky-buildings-poor-...

[nomilk]

I would swap a lot of these out for primary sources. 'News' sites are just middle-men for a 9:1 blend of unimportant trash and important information. Occasionally they can alert you of something important you need to know about, but once I learn of such topics, I examine primary source(s) and context; very rarely do I get info from the 'news' article itself; it's usually designed to titillate or outrage.

[wolverine876]

> 'News' sites are just middle-men for a 9:1 blend of unimportant trash and important information.

You are looking at the wrong sites. There are many - more than I can read - which focus on serious news.

[wanderingmind]

The most interesting news website for down under is theconversation. The quality is much much higher than any other general news website I have ever read.

[LastTrain]

I did about the same thing at about the same time. I’ve spent much more time creating - music, software, retro computing. Much happier, but there is one corner of my brain that feels a bit like I had to give up on humanity to get here and that sucks.

[Night_Thastus]

Wholeheartedly agree.

While not a news site, Reddit has many large subreddits that repost news from other sites. They frequently make it to the front page.

Banishing every single one of them off my front page definitely makes scrolling through it less headache-inducing.

[starkd]

Entirely understandable. But taken too far, it is sort of like a person being raped coming to terms with the abuse and actually learning to like it. News can be addictive, so its important to keep it in check. But too much ignorance makes you an unwitting slave.

[wil421]

I like to watch my favorite local news station. They have a lot of minor stories that never make the National media. Although there are local issues like murders, thefts, and controversial topics. It’s still a huge downgrade from the rage inducing large outlets.

[sangnoir]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE

edit: To add more color: "local news" is increasingly not local anymore. The video I linked to is a collection of "local" stations that are owned by Sinclair reading from the same script rather literally.

[uncletammy]

I expect youre being downvoted for the same reasons I felt the need to reply. I'm skeptical that any "local" news station is able to give you useful content without also pushing strong partisian agendas.

What station is it? Asking with an open heart and mind. I would love it if such a thing exists in this day and age.

[freeone3000]

Local news tends to be way more actionable. City council meetings are attended by like... Thirty people? Max? I've shown up to ones where there are more people on the council than in the gallery. It's very easy to get your voice heard if you're in a crowd the size of a small classroom. And the impact is direct! They were going to accept the suburb negotiation for allocation of service renumeration based on assessed value rather than service quantity consumed! I voiced my opposition, as did several others; the motion was eventually decided against.

But if you're not reading your local paper, you might not even have known. Of course all three of mine are INCREDIBLY partisan, which is great because they're partisan in different ways :)

[wil421]

Hesitant to give out my location but I guess if you combed my comment history someone could find out.

I like WSB-TV and the early morning broadcast only. Lots of local news less the 5 o’clock prime time breaking news type stuff. Perhaps the key is picking the right time of day.

I also pay for PBS/GPB but I am someone who can filter out partisan topics and welcome both liberal and conservative discussions. At the end of the day I make my own conclusions and I’m not afraid to break party lines.

[wolverine876]

Just read the serious sources, like the NY Times or Washington Post. They have serious news and are not 'rage inducing'. (Skip the editorial pages.)

[treeman79]

I’ve found that one needs to decide if they are going to get involved, or if there is a line that can be crossed that they are willing to get involved.

If not, ignore all news. If the line is crossed or going to be crossed soon. Then get involved.

[i_play_stax]

Can confirm. Did this myself in mid 2020. So much better.

[nradov]

I guess it's one of those game theory things. Individually each of us can improve our lives by "defecting" and ignoring the news. But if we all "cooperate" by consuming a lot of news then we have better odds of voting in ways that actually improve the world. An interesting moral dilemma: is it right to become a low-information voter in order to be happier?

(I am not judging your choices. I honestly don't know the correct answer.)

[chmod600]

"by consuming a lot of news then we have better odds of voting in ways that actually improve the world"

I doubt that's true. Certainly not if we are all reading broadly and shallowly, from a few dozen media sources all trying to trigger outrage.

It would be true if we all looked deeply at different topics. Then voting would represent some combination of all of that deep knowledge.

[wolverine876]

How could it be 'right' to abidicate resposibility? If others do it, how will anything get done?

Claiming powerlessness is an excuse to avoid the stress of our times. Now, more than ever, people need to step up and take responsibility.

[bumby]

An alternative is to find someone whose thought process you trust who does consume a lot of news and treat them as a human filter. Not too much different than how we use experts in other domains.

[wolverine876]

Who is going to make decisions and hold power in our society, if not you and me? We have responsibilities for it; if it's malfunctioning, that is on us. Who will take care of these responsibilities for you?

Expecting someone else to do it is playing a victim and a child - it is us, there's nobody else; there are no parents or authorities to take care of us while we act out. People following your path are why nothing happens. People who act are the reason many do face consequences.

Look at the world that was built for you - the freedom, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, the technology, health care, roads, schools, etc. They were built by the prior generations, not by people who quit under stress. What are you building?

The best tactic of the people with power is to get people like you to give up yours, because the public has the ultimate power. Why do you think people in power invest so much in persuasion, disinformation, etc.? If you were powerless, it wouldn't matter.

If you claim news is useless, what are you doing on HN that is so useful? (And see the headlines from Memeorandum, below.)

> there has been zero consequences during my 50 years of life

That's a falsehood, and if more need to face consequences, that is up to you and me.

> Memeorandum

Here are the current headlines. Many have great impact on the future of our country, on the freedom and financial security of hundreds of millions. You don't care about anyone else, including yourself? That's not a persuasive argument.

* Trump attorney ordered to testify before grand jury investigating former president

* Law enforcement agencies are prepping for a possible Trump indictment as early as next week

* ‘The Wire’ Star Lance Reddick Dead at 60

* Wyoming Becomes First State to Outlaw Abortion Pills

* My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School

* Two gifts to Trump family from foreign nations are missing, report says

* ICC issues arrest warrant for Putin over war crimes in Ukraine

* House GOP ignored Capitol Police requests to review public Jan. 6 footage, lawyer says

* Michigan Is Becoming The Anti-Florida On LGBTQ Rights ― And A Lot More

* Biden jokes he's ‘really not Irish’ because he's sober, doesn't have relatives ‘in jail’

* America Has Decided It Went Overboard on Covid-19

* Biden asks Congress to impose tougher penalties on executives of failed banks

* Just Because ChatBots Can't Think Doesn't Mean They Can't Lie

* Derek Chauvin, ex-officer convicted of killing George Floyd, pleads guilty to federal tax evasion

* As crucial legal test for Antifa ideology heads to trial, right-wing media also scrutinized

... etc. (list is getting too long)

[dirtybird04]

> ‘The Wire’ Star Lance Reddick Dead at 60

> My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School

> Two gifts to Trump family from foreign nations are missing, report says

> Michigan Is Becoming The Anti-Florida On LGBTQ Rights ― And A Lot More

> Biden jokes he's ‘really not Irish’ because he's sober, doesn't have relatives ‘in jail’

> Just Because ChatBots Can't Think Doesn't Mean They Can't Lie

> Derek Chauvin, ex-officer convicted of killing George Floyd, pleads guilty to federal tax evasion

> As crucial legal test for Antifa ideology heads to trial, right-wing media also scrutinized

I live on the west coast and the above items you mentioned are pure sensationalism and have absolutely nothing to do with me, my state, or my local community. They add absolutely no value, informational or otherwise, to my life. They do not help me make more informed choices for me and my family or better my life in any discernible way.

You want to care about all that fluff and noise? Good for you. Just don't go around pretending to be a better person for that, or denigrating others who don't fall for that crap. People like you are part of the problem, not the solution.

[wolverine876]

Sure, there are some things that won't apply to you, but there are many that do. Also, why limit the scope of importance to state and local - it seems arbitrary. Things all over the world affect you. Look at climate change, as an easy example. (Also, the Antifa trial is in San Diego.)

> pure sensationalism

Political censorship in elite law schools, corruption by your President, AI dangers, justice, political oppression. Those things can certainly affect you and do, and will. The freedom of future Americans and people around the world depends on you - there's nobody else to do it for you. We're on our own. Let's get to work!

While you fight for this narrative, you surrender your power to others who are determing the course of your life. You are doing just want they want.

[dirtybird04]

You sound like a hoot to be around. Hope you find some peace within yourself and stop telling others how to live their lives.

[ar9av]

That's not the thrust of the study. Per the article, "Here we analyse the effect of negative words on news consumption...

Where it is reported a reason for consumption "...negative information automatically activating threat responses and leading one to deduce that ...motivations may make ‘fear’ and ‘anger’ more influential...