[flagged]
I work in clean tech and present solutions to government over and over. They never go with the obviously right choice, they go for the choice that makes their stakeholders happy.
Next time you meet anyone in government ask them why roof top solar is more than 5x cheaper in Australia and how biofuels can be a long term solution to our energy needs.
This was my thinking: The linked article is long and paywalled, and the title is provocative and possibly misunderstood. Rather than people commenting based only on the title and their prior views on the issue, I thought it might help to provide an objective summary of the article. An AI’s summary is likely to be more objective than one written by a person interested in the issue (including me). Claude 2 is, as far as I know, the only publically accessible LLM that can summarize such long articles, and it is currently available only to people in the U.S. and U.K. or with VPNs. I therefore decided to post that summary myself in the hope that it would lead to a more constructive discussion. Such a discussion hasn’t emerged yet, but that doesn’t seem to be because of the summary.
In any case, there doesn’t seem to be consensus yet on whether AI summaries on HN are good or bad; my own AI summary has received both upvotes and downvotes. I'll drop a note to @dang and ask for his thoughts on the issue.
“[AI-generated summaries are] definitely discouraged. We haven't added it formally to the guidelines (mainly because I think it follows as a corollary, or maybe a lemma, from what's already there) but we want HN threads to be for curious conversation between humans, and have always discouraged autogenerated comments or even human-written summaries.”
Why is this specifically called out as a problem?
Single party rule is dangerous. There are merits of both left and right wing political philosophies, yet neither has all the answers. We should value political diversity as much as we do other forms of diversity (with the obvious exception of political extremists of either persuasion) and seek compromise and consensus whenever possible.