Hacker News Reader

Comment by Radim | Hacker News Reader

This is a self-correcting problem.

If people consume "credible bullshit" and can't tell the difference, without consequences, then your thoughtful work isn't as valuable as you thought.

If on the other hand people consume BS and it comes to bite them in the ass (through reduced socioeconomic status and, ultimately, reduced reproductive success), then competing approaches become viable.

We may not be around to experience it – a variation of "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" – but you may find comfort in the fact that Nature has a way of optimizing away cruft. Most often through repurposing the obsolete-but-already-existing system for another function, and failing that, through atrophy and death.

View on HN

> then your thoughtful work isn't as valuable as you thought.

Why is this type of dismissal so prevalent on HN? Do you really believe that?

In the real world, core infrastructure depends on code that does not raise enough money to buy groceries. Do you remember OpenSSL and Heartbleed? The entire internet paraphrases the same few nuggets of original research, with affiliate links slapped on top.

The market has been irrational for as long as I have been alive, and it's getting more irrational every year. When will the invisible hand of the free market correct things? Why do you insist that we live in a libertarian utopia where this statement holds any semblance of truth?

Sounds a lot like the current setup is already pretty fucked when it comes to rewarding creators. So why limit people who are driven to create by restricting what they can and cannot use?

And just to be clear, people do write long, well-researched content for free all the time.

I'm all for holding Microsoft et al. to the same copyright laws they expect others to follow when it comes to their own works, but ultimately it would be in societies interest to not limit creators. Sure, maybe there are areas where we need to find ways to encourage creators but let's not do that by limiting everyone else.

Do I believe that when others choose to not buy your work, and buy something else instead and are happy with their choice, your output wasn't as valuable to them as you maybe thought?

Yes, I do.

In fact, I see that statement as nearly tautological.

I also believe that throwing people in jail if they don't value the same things as you is wrong.

Both of which are largely orthogonal to my original point though – which is that determination of value is a self-correcting process over evolutionary time spans. But I understand you wanted to shake your fist at the sky, in these difficult times.

Same with your OSS reference – I happen to publish several open source packages, used by thousands of companies around the world, which in total bring me about grocery-level income (~€500/month, pre-tax). So what?

>Do I believe that when others choose to not buy your work, and buy something else instead and are happy with their choice, your output wasn't as valuable to them as you maybe thought?

If the "AI" community chose not to buy nicbou's work and chose to use materials in the Public Domain instead, that's fine. If the "AI" community chose not to buy nicbou's work and chose to use Radim's work instead under terms agreeable to Radim, that's fine.

But that's not what happens. What happens is the "AI" community chose not to buy nicbou's work and chose to use nicbou's work anyway. That's where the problem is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com