"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
I know you have no time, and I don't need a response. I have no skin in this exchange either, fwiw. But I just want to try to unpack here how this could be either a provocation or a noteworthy tangent. Is it that being pessimistic about the future is flamebait? Is it perhaps sneering? Is there anything to be said about the rest of the sentence in question and how its clearly just being a little cheeky? Or is that perhaps whats wrong with it?
Just feels perhaps a little out of place this time that the gp would be in the wrong at all here. But I'm sure I'm missing something obvious.
Generic references to "the advent of AI" are already flamebait (ok, proto-flamebait) because the topic is so hot, discussed, and divisive. But casually dropping "and the final decades of our species" as an assumed fact, sort of like the decline of CDs or something, is definitely a provocation. It's unsurprising that someone got activated and then we were off down a generic flamewar tangent.
>Oh, come on. This is what we get from social media bubbles and breathless irresponsible media reporting [emphasis mine].
Speaking of bubbles, how sure are you that Silicon Valley and HN are not part of a bubble composed of people with an emotional attachment to technological progress and people with a financial stake in AI?
How sure are you that the AI labs aren't being even more irresponsible than the news media?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I agree it's a provocation and, worse, a generic tangent, but the rest of the comment was pretty good.