Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

I admit I didn't read the entire post (I honestly think authors really need to come to terms with the fact that we now live in a world of information excess, and pithiness is more important than ever), but I wouldn't feel too bad yet given there was a recent front page HN post about how free, open models could actually catch all the issues Mythos did, it just required a little more orchestration. E.g. see https://aisle.com/blog/ai-cybersecurity-after-mythos-the-jag... for a detailed analysis.

View on HN

if an 1800 word post is just too long I think you are cooked. This is the nicest thing I can say on the subject.

It's not that 1800 words is too long, it's that I've seen probably 40-50 (at least) posts, analyses, and bloviations about Mythos since it came out. If the author doesn't very quickly get to why I should read their particular 1800 words over the other similar and competing tens of thousands of words on the subject, they are "cooked".

Open gemini chrome sidebar, type "sum." Watch the magic happen.

They could just be writing for themselves, or their friends, or for people with the patience to read. You are making assumptions about how badly they want to reach your particular eyeballs. They might not care about trying to win over people with a minimal attention span as much as you think they do.

What makes you think your comment was worth reading?

> pithiness is more important than ever

I apologize for getting stuck on your parenthetical but while pithiness is a fine aspiration in a North American business setting, pithy reads generally can't exist without more detailed and nuanced long-form analyses, and the latter face a more dire existential threat. You are right that pithy [writing] is an important skill, as are slow and deliberative reading and writing of longer form work

I'm not claiming the original post is detailed or nuanced, to be clear

To give a clearer example of what I was talking about, look at the linked article from my comment above. It is much longer than the original article from this post, but it (a) starts with a TL;DR, so it gives me a summary that lets me know if I want to read it in the first place, (b) combines detailed original research with analysis and opinion, and, IMO (c) continually adds new information/insights so it builds on itself.

Obviously not apples-to-apples comparison to this article as they have different purposes (original research vs. pure opinion), I just point this out because a bunch of comments seem to be stuck on the idea that I was saying "don't write anything that doesn't fit in a tweet", and that wasn't my point at all.

OK, that's fair -- it sounds to me though that it's less about pithiness, or that this word might be too narrow. To me it sounds like you are talking about accessibility, in the sense that you'd like more care from writers in structuring their writing with consideration for legibility to the reader. In that I am with you

I’ve read it, it’s taken me about ten minutes, and it’s been refreshing to read something that is not sloppy. The page design and type are soothing, too.

I don’t agree with everything that the article says but it soulfully blends concepts in history, politics, economics, cryptography and AI.

I don’t think the author could’ve compressed it without precisely sacrificing the essay’s soul.

Is this what everything is coming down to?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com