[MichaelZuo]

The parent is pointing out that the prior comment is literally meaningless, and self defeating too, since the same logic would apply to your own existence, or simulated existence. Including any possible words you could ever write.

(As far as any other HN reader could ever perceive)

[nilkn]

Don’t you think jumping to a complete existential crisis over such a simple comment is a little extreme? That alone is a red flag that maybe dogma has taken over. No, nothing I wrote suggests one must shut down all scientific discussion or inquiry. No, it does not mean you cannot investigate X and its implications. No, it does not mean you cannot build speculative models on top of X. Yes, it does mean it’s important to be careful with language and avoid enshrining what is only an assumption as an unassailable fact of reality for generations.

[MichaelZuo]

Who said it’s a ‘complete existential crisis’?

It’s just a fact of reality that no one else on HN can verify with certainty whether or not you are a genuine, bonafide, human being, especially online.

Everyone who is engaging with you is just assuming you are.

[nilkn]

I said that. If you thought I was wrong in that assertion, then all you had to do was stop questioning your entire existence here. The fact that you continued to do so lends credence to my assertion rather than refuting it.

[MichaelZuo]

Who is ‘I’?

If you mean ‘nilkn’, the presumably human created HN account ostensibly still operated by that same sole human being, writing their own thoughts down and not on behalf of other entities, then thanks for providing an excellent demonstration.