Hacker News Reader

Comment by zzzeek | Hacker News Reader

I dont think it's welcome on hacker news here but I pasted your comment into Gemini and it has a lot of interesting things to say about it (needless to say it's skeptical and points out a lot of reasons for this), I recommend trying it out.

oh heck here's it's response to the Venus part:

"Climate scientists and astrophysicists have looked into this extensively. The definitive scientific consensus is that a Venus scenario is physically impossible on Earth from burning fossil fuels. To trigger a runaway greenhouse effect that vaporizes the oceans (like Venus), Earth would need to receive much more solar radiation than it currently does. Even if we burned every single ounce of fossil fuel on the planet and triggered all feedback loops, the Earth would become devastatingly hot and hostile to human civilization, but it would eventually stabilize. It would not turn into Venus."

View on HN

It isn't welcome here. We're here to have conversations with human beings, not robots. If rekabis cared about what an LLM had to say they could have done that themselves.

well then parent posters inaccurate doomerism will sit there unchallenged

a gemini query is like a google search with natural language embedded. ill do my "google search" and just rewrite the text next time, ta

unless google searches are also illegal for hacker news commenting

> If rekabis cared about what an LLM had to say they could have done that themselves.

I post stories here hoping for just that human interaction you speak of, plenty of scientists here who could have added to the topic, but none did. Doomerists are not typically interested in researching their claims, it would make for much less sensationalistic claims. From my own human perspective, the best I could offer without research is "that looks like a really ridiculous claim". I think a researched claim is a lot more valuable here.

>unless google searches are also illegal for hacker news commenting

Posting verbatim from google searches would not be allowed either. This forum is for conversations between human beings, not machine generated content. I don't know why you bothered to ask, though, since it seems you don't actually care.

>From my own human perspective, the best I could offer without research is "that looks like a really ridiculous claim". I think a researched claim is a lot more valuable here.

You're not required to participate in a thread. If the best you have to offer is a low value comment you can consider not making it versus intentionally breaking the rules because you feel compelled to add something. It's OK. This isn't supposed to be work. You don't have a quota to meet. If you feel no one is adding to a topic you're under no obligation to try to maximize its quality by any means necessary, including means no one here actually wants. It's OK just just move on.

This story is one I posted, and nobody replied to it. Not to mention I did no such thing as "post verbatim from a Google search" as though I wrote it, I would never do that and feel free to look through my nearly two decade posting history to find that, it's a quote which I attributed.

If you don't like my posts, the downmod button is right there. I can otherwise do without the moralizing lecture which is definitely something nobody wants here. Did you just search for "AI" posts that needed policing to even find this totally dead thread ? Talk about HN being a "job"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com