Hacker News Reader

Comment by _9za9 | Hacker News Reader

Well, he’s right. Entering the public square means exposure not only to what someone chooses to see but also to what others choose to share with them. That isn’t harassment, despite the victim mentality you’re promoting. If she doesn’t like it, she’s free to leave social media, simple as that. The same principle applies here on Hacker News: we all have to read posts from people who dislike AI. I believe those people will eventually be left behind, I don't care if they are left behind, and I have no interest in reading anti-AI arguments in 2025. After all, where were they when AI algorithms were being developed back in the 50s and 60s?

View on HN

> That isn’t harassment, despite the victim mentality you’re promoting.

Are you stating that this isn't harassment, or that you are incapable of being harassed on social media?

> Entering the public square means exposure not only to what someone chooses to see but also to what others choose to share with them.

This isnt a public square, let alone even a physical one. Even in the physical space, I am not beholden to look at what others share. I am under no obligation to take the flyer as I pass by. I am under no obligation to stop and listen as they prance around and try to get into my face.

These companies could provide a set level of tools for its users to be able to appropriately weed their own gardens, but they mostly chose not too. If she could set her app to not show her any video links from parties she didn't follow that pinged her, this probably wouldnt be an issue. There could easily be an middle ground between accept all harassment, and not visit the social club.

If I compile the voice recordings of my dead father and create a ai replica that you could call and speak to him, and then I sent it to my extended family, that's not harassment if they choose to believe that they don't like it.

Suppose I (a stranger who never met your father) do it, the AI replica I make is obviously fake and wrong, but it becomes popular nad people send you versions of it 10 times a day?

Harassment or not, it would be very cruel.

> After all, where were they when AI algorithms were being developed back in the 50s and 60s?

...living in a world where AI wasn't an enabler for abuse? What a bafflingly weird take - "you didn't object to <thing> when it was first thought of, so now it's being used badly you can't object to it"

I have no interest in reading anti-AI arguments in 2025. After all, where were they when AI algorithms were being developed back in the 50s and 60s?

They were in the library. Philip K Dick among others wrote extensively on likely downsides of such technology during the period you mention. Even were this not the case, you're basically arguing that nobody under the age of 60 has any right to complain because they weren't around when the concepts were first articulated. This is asinine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com