[tptacek]

I'm not being snarky. I genuinely do not care about AGI.

It's weird to watch people write as if I'm trying to back away from that article or hedge or whatever. I expect to wrap my career up at some point and look at that post as one of the better and more valuable things I've ever written.

[john_strinlai]

>I'm not being snarky

"I would like to take this moment to apologize to you, personally, for not giving a shit about "AGI"."

appears to be dripping with snark

[tptacek]

Have I spoiled the solemnity of the subthread where we're litigating whether we "lost our aura" by writing a blog post?

[john_strinlai]

no? its just weird to write an obviously snarky sentence and then follow up with "im not being snarky".

you have no problem owning the tone of the blog post, why not own the tone of your comment?

[tptacek]

I can't judge how snarky I'm being overall. I'm writing like I would on any HN thread. What I was saying was: my lack of concern about AGI is not snark.

It's weird to me that anybody would call that out. Are you super worried about AGI?

[john_strinlai]

>I can't judge how snarky I'm being overall

okay, well, then this is me telling you that overall, the comment with the fake apology came across as really snarky.

>Are you super worried about AGI?

no. i typically agree with your takes on ai. i usually just happily ignore your tone and enjoy the substance of your comments but i thought this particular exchange from you was exceptionally odd so i commented on it.

[tptacek]

I am paying attention to what you're saying but I think if you look at the context of this thread and take a beat you might sense, like I do, that the bar for charity is a bump or two lower than it normally is.

[pseudalopex]

dijksterhuis said their point was your tone. Not your AGI opinion.