Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Arodex 29 days ago
>The reason is that genetics/evolution don't yet seem to fully explain how humans exist. A computer genetic algorithm run for a billion generations doesn't lead to anything anywhere near the the complexity of a human.

I didn't have "creationism" as the top answer to a HN post in 2026, yet here we are...
3 comments
dryarzeg 29 days ago
Have you read the next paragraph?

> I suspect there are as-yet undiscovered effects which shape the next generation. Whether that be DNA methylation, gut bacteria passing from mother to child, selection of the 'correct' egg or sperm out of millions, or something new and un-discovered etc.

I can't see where it mentions "creationism".

link
qsera 29 days ago
How is that creationism? Saying that we don't have a good answer is not the same as suggestion one particular hypothesis.

To me suggesting that sounds pretty anti-intellectual!

link
fragmede 29 days ago
Anti-intellectuallism is everywhere, especially amongst the intellectuals. The latest bent of this is to ask if an AI wrote this, rather than engage with the substance of what's written.
link
someonebaggy 29 days ago
AI writing is anti-intellectual. It demands the time of thousands of people to read when they could be reading something with actual meaning. You're demanding scholars to read comic books all day in case they have content worth engaging with (spoiler: they don't).
link
mschuster91 29 days ago
> The latest bent of this is to ask if an AI wrote this, rather than engage with the substance of what's written.

Just an half hour ago, TomasBM wrote in another thread [1] why people first want to filter out AI slop, which IMHO fits perfectly:

> Getting those verbose, AI-authored walls of text is very annoying, especially when you're expected to thoroughly review it. It's like a denial-of-service attack on the human mind.

To that, I'd add my personal take: I go to HN, Bluesky, Reddit or Twitter to engage in meaningful conversation with other people (ranked in inverse likelihood of coming across sloppypasta). If I wanted to talk to a robot, I'd prompt ChatGPT myself. When others use AI for more than translation, this violates this core assumption of how human communication, how society has worked for all of human history.

Unfortunately, and I've been on the receiving end of this myself, anything longer or more substantive than a tweet will immediately evoke the "is this AI" assumption, and it's gotten worse as ChatGPT et al managed to eliminate the usual "tells".

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48743798

link