[pk-protect-ai]

This kind of BS is exactly what they targeting at. Tailoring BS into "report" with no evidence or reference and then let the ones like you defend it. Just because you already afraid or want others to be afraid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omc37TvHN74

[xpe]

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omc37TvHN74

This links to a video titled "(why facts dont [sic] change minds (goose explains)"). First, I am not seeing the connection to the comment above -- the comment is hard to make sense of for various reasons, including grammatical errors, vague language, and easily refuted claims (see my other comment).

Second, as I watch the video, I am thinking as follows: "Yes, there are some good points here. I wish the person who posted the video would watch the video again with an eye towards self-reflection, as it reveals some areas for improvement."

My overall take on the video: it oversimplifies, even gets some things wrong. There is some value to be found if one knows how to extract the good from the bad. I would not recommend it, not even as an introduction. There are better sources.

[xpe]

> ... into "report" with no evidence or reference

If one takes a few minutes to review the NIST report [1], one will indeed find evidence and references detailed in the footnotes.

Without judgment, I ask: How did you miss this? I'm certainly not asking you to defend yourself, which would likely trigger rationalization [2]. I am asking you to sincerely try to figure it out for yourself. Under what conditions do you have the ability to admit that you are wrong, even if only to yourself?

[1]: https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2025/09/30/CAISI...

[2]: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Rationa...

[xpe]

The comment above is problematic for various reasons.

> Just because you already afraid or want others to be afraid.

We need to be more careful with our thinking and writing. [1] The word "just" indicates the commenter landed only on one explanation, but there are other plausible explanations, including, for example:

- others have different experiences -- but if this experience was communicated and understood, another person would incorporate the new information modify their assessment somewhat

- others have various values and preferences (some overlapping, some phrased differently, some in tension)

- others are using different reasoning (and if one's goal is to learn, it would be better to ask and clarify rather than over simplify and accuse them of having nefarious motives.)

Second, the commenter above is speculating. They don't know me, nor have they engaged in a sincere, constructive, meaningful discussion to understand what I'm saying.

Third, to me, the comment above comes across as unnecessarily abrasive, to the point of being self-defeating and degrading the quality of a shared discussion.

[1] If one is writing privately (e.g. a journal), I care relatively less about logical fallacies such as motivated reasoning. [2] But here in public, wayward reasoning has more negative externalities. Our time would be better spent if more people took the time to write thoughtfully. I don't think most people here are lacking in sufficient computational ability. However, they must choose to respect their audience -- their time, their diversity of values, their different experiences -- and remember that one's hasty comment (authored in say 2 minutes) might be read by hundreds of people (wasting say 100+ minutes). Lastly, it is nice to see when a person has the character to say "thank you for the correction", but this is uncommon on HN.

[2] But I still care because society is highly interconnected and the downstream effects matter to me. Put another way, "Your Rationality is My Business" as explained here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/anCubLdggTWjnEvBS/your-ratio...