Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by chungusamongus 2 days ago
The cost of reading this story is not high; you are just lazy and easily distracted. It took 5 minutes to read. You took more time to respond to this comment than it took to simply read the story.
3 comments

skippyfish: > the cost of reading [an infinite supply of arguments ...] remains high

you: > The cost of reading this story is not high

Do you see where you went wrong?

Please explain where I went wrong. Please explain why the onus is on the person presenting this story to account for all of the bad uses of AI, such that we should simply dismiss the story outright. This is pure idiocy.
The onus is always on the writer. No one is owed an audience.
That's not what I said. Do you have trouble reading? Are you subliterate or just lazy?
*> That's not what I said.

So close to spotting the mistake you made in your response to skippyfish, yet so far!

I'm a slow reader. It took 9 minutes! Foul, I say!
Oh, you think it’s just this story? The cost of reading slop is infinity. No thanks.
That's circular reasoning
It’s not. It’s very simple, but you like to say “circular reasoning”. Maybe you heard it in debate class. There is unlimited slop. I decide what to read _without reading it_. So do you. I have deemed this unworthy. It’s more fun to insult it than to read it. Every day is a gift.
>It’s more fun to insult it than to read it.

That belongs in the HN Hall of Fame

Thanks!
Really? It just seems aggressively stupid.
You're right. I should've specified "sentiment frequently seen here."
It is circular. The conclusion of your argument is included in the premises. Textbook begging the question, which is circular reasoning.

"Slop" existed before AI. Just because LLMs were involved in the writing of a text does not make it inherently "slop." You're just lazy.

Everyday is a gift, and yet you waste it getting weirdly defensive about your choices? Someone who is secure about this sort of thing doesn't feel the need to explain themselves.