Comment by dang
21 hours ago
Please don't be snarky or curmudgeonly in HN comments. You can make your substantive points without either of those things, both of which the site guidelines ask you not to do.
21 hours ago
Please don't be snarky or curmudgeonly in HN comments. You can make your substantive points without either of those things, both of which the site guidelines ask you not to do.
Not sure if that's a fair criticism dang? I sincerely wasn't trying to be snarky or curmudgeonly, but I did want to make the point clearly that none of the benefits of AI have materialised in the eyes of the average person, only the downstream costs. To my eyes, that's a salient, reasonable, and wholly representative position to share.
Did the writing also contain emotion? Yes. As all good persuasive writing should.
As the other moderator, I'll give my own perspective on this. I haven't spoken to dang about it but I completely understand why he thinks this is not the kind of comment we want to see on HN.
The main issue is that it doesn't engage with the substance of the post, and in fact, it exemplifies the very point the post is trying to make: there is a big and growing gap between those who recognize the benefits or potential of AI and those who don't (or, to widen the point, who only see negative effects or negative trends in society).
I'll make it clear that I don't think your complaints or concerns are unfounded or invalid. There's merit and substance to all these issues, and it's fine to discuss them on HN. They are discussed all the time here, and they can and should continue to be discussed in the future.
But an important part of being the kind of curious commenter that we want everyone to aspire to be is that we can look at topics holistically. We need to be able to look at the opportunities and risks together and discuss ways that the benefits can be captured and shared throughout society, and the risks and costs adequately recognized and curtailed. Most people I know of in the tech industry are taking these matters seriously.
It's a vast and complex topic to discuss, and here's not the place for me to get further into it. But the point is that it's a bigger and more complex topic than your comment adequately recognizes, and we need people to always be making the effort to be thoughtful and curious rather than fulminatory or denunciatory in their participation here.
(Also: I can understand you may not easily recognize that your comment breaks the guidelines; it's common for people to not recognize that their words seem more inflammatory when read by others than they intended them to be.)
So, if I say, there is a big and growing gap between those who recognize the benefits or potential of my poop machine and those who don't, and you say, wtf is this shit everywhere, I can just say, you doesn't engage with the substance of my post, and in fact exemplifies the very point my post is trying to make
3 replies →
You made a well-argued and wise criticism that many academics/writers/think could have written, the mod's note was off the mark.
It honestly escapes me why you would judge the juxtaposition between everyday life of everyday people and a very specialised minority as snarky or curmudgeonly. Was there too much emotional impact?
There are so many comments on HN that would justify your attention with regard to this specific rule. This is not one of them.
I think they made a really good point about this and I wouldn’t really call it snark.
How is this comment worth a moderator warning? Does not make sense to me, the comment is fine.
Maybe I don't understand the word snarky but this seemed fine.
What sets this particular comment apart from so many others on this thread that you felt the need to comment on it specifically?
Can you point out what a good way of expressing disagreement or skepticism about a subject matter looks like on HN?
[flagged]
Many, many people here have already been sucked into the TESCREAL orbit, and have a quasi-religious belief that AI will be the most important thing to ever happen. Anything that challenges that stance is anathema.
[flagged]