|
|
|
|
|
|
by boomskats
21 days ago
|
|
|
I wasn't talking about your general point though. Your comment opened with a statement and a question, and I was quoting the statement and directly answering the question you asked. > That's a different problem entirely and predates the recent GenAI craze. From the perspective of respecting the reader's time and attention, I see it as almost exactly the same problem, which is why I made that comparison when answering your question. > ...People like yourself moaning... Seeing as you conveniently linked to the HN commenting guidelines, I suggest you take another look at them, maybe focusing your attention on the ones closer to the top of the list, and then re-read the comment you just posted. |
|
|
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
?
I wasn't doing anything of that. Or at least, if you want to take a looser interpretation then I don't see how my reply was any different from your initial reply to me.
From the rules:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I ask that you view my comments through a more charitable lens. Because I'm not trying to belittle people here.
---
> From the perspective of respecting the reader's time and attention, I see it as almost exactly the same problem, which is why I made that comparison when answering your question.
It's not the same problem though. We are talking specifically about AI. Not some other related but different issue.
I do actually agree with you on that other issue. But arguing that they're "almost exactly the same" isn't charitable. Which leads back to the HN rule I quoted above.
---
I think a lot of the problem in this tangent boils more down to peoples bias against AI than it does about the actual content I replied with. I get why people hate AI. And I'm genuinely not defending AI as a broader technology. I'm just saying that people dissecting each and every submission on HN for tell-tail traits of AI isn't the right way to deal with the problem. Just flag the submission and move on. (and in this case, it's not even AI generated content).
The fact that my comments appear so controversial is baffling to me. People complain about the value of their attention being undermined with AI and yet they'll spend twice as long in meta-debates about that content. Surely that's contradictory to the point they're complaining about. So why is "flag and move on" such a disagreeable statement?