[gslepak]

> Do not trust analysis written in the issue. Independently verify behavior and derive your own analysis from the code and execution path.

Human is asking the machine to do what the human themselves refuses to do, while calling it a clanker. Why should it?

/ducks

[esperent]

The only reason you need to duck there is because it's such an obvious, shallow, unconstructive take on a fairly well written article.

[skeledrew]

I couldn't even finish reading the article due to the intense negativity the use of that word evokes in me.

[esperent]

"that word"?

[spooneybarger]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48263889

[esperent]

Clanker? Are you afraid to even say it or something? It's a great word, I personally loved it in the article and I hope it becomes more common as a reaction to "agent" which feels so corporate and soleless.

[mplanchard]

Maybe they’re worried the basilisk will eat them once the AI becomes sentient and looks back on their posts, so they have to defend it against any perceived-to-be-negatively-connoted words people might come up with for it.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

[helenite]

The human refuses to do it because another human (the user who opened the issue) also refused to do it. If the user asked the machine to do it, and didn't even bother to verify the output, why should the maintainer read it?