Comment by latexr
3 days ago
The HN guidelines explicitly ask you to steel man arguments you reply to. It is obvious that the point of the comment is not sawdust specifically; they could have used anything else, like cyanide, and the point would stand. Spending multiple paragraphs of rebuttal on a nitpick which fails to address the crux of the argument is precisely the kind of bad argument the HN guidelines aim to avoid.
You read the same response I did, right? And you... thought it was... literally about sawdust? ...and you took offense? I'm so confused...
Seems like you haven’t understood my comment, but I’m unsure how to clarify it for you. Perhaps start by not assuming that expressing disagreement means taking offence? Not everything needs to be emotionally charged. Again, steel man.
Just checked again to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I still see the same thing. I read the long post as a thoroughly steelmanned response. Nobody has yet engaged with the philosophical content of that post. You cried foul for reasons I still can't understand. Would you tell us what you thought about the post on an intellectual level?
I eat meat but I'm one of those people who is ethically opposed to consuming AI content. An AI-vegan you might say.
I've had a shouting fight with someone who tried to spoon feed an AI summary to me in a regular human conversation.
But. I know that people are going to sneak AI content into what I consume even if I do everything within my power to avoid it.
The question is straightforward if immensely complex. Do I have a right to not be fed AI content? Is that even a practical goal? What if I can't tell?
2 replies →