Supply5411

I've left this place a few times as it's gotten progressively worse. Then I rejoin after some time off, and it's even more warped and hostile to new users.

The project that I'm known for, sh.py, was launched on HN 12 years ago, dig up the post if you're interested.

Yes, I know that. Where did I say differently? I said the threats are being normalized. If a world power is telling their citizens that it's happening, whether its actually happening or not, then that is the process of normalization.

I made no reference to burner accounts, but thanks for tying that into your not-so-subtle accusation against me. I've been here since 2011. Want proof of my identity, check my bio on Github[1]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. McCarthy like paranoia. Downvoting people because of how old their accounts are[2], not because of what they wrote. Accusations of burner accounts. It's ridiculous.

1. https://github.com/amoffat 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37668908

MSM wants to pretend that nobody realizes their purpose is to push disinformation to everyone, all the time. So they clutch their pearls when "the other side" does it. Sorry, MSM, your credibility is in the toilet. You're all pushing disinformation, all the time. You get no points for calling the other side out on it.

What claim? I'm quoting the article and saying its ridiculous that racial bioweapon threats are becoming normalized.

>shouldn’t it be on the AI company to train using legally acquired content in the first place

I don't think so. It's not illegal to look at or learn from copyrighted materials. If you start producing the materials it becomes a different question. I think the same applies to AI.

The problem is inseparable from the system, because people are involved.

Makes sense, since you can use real money to buy reddit accounts with good reputation.

If a model generates large amounts of text that is very close to something you've written, because there isn't much else like it, how is that "inspired"? It needs more dilution.

DMCA 2024 - A nice big report button for when generated content is too close to copyrighted content. It is then on the AI company to supplement the training materials around that content, to dilute the generation of content that could be seen as infringing. So instead of George RR Martin prequels with the same names and characters (because of a lack of training materials), it generates something more generic for the input prompt.

Win/win?

There is much more freedom when they don't have to work to support a lie though. I'd rather a dishonest person or company have to put in a lot of work to defraud someone, than to have no scrutiny whatsoever.

Yeah these are good points, and I think a lot of the complicated details would need to be worked out in practice.

>What about positions that are considered negative value usually called "cost centers".

I think if finance people can get together to determine FMV of a company's private shares, they can determine how much employees in a cost center contribute to profit. There would be models and assumptions that would be generally correct to make the numbers add up.

>What about the fact that higher educated skilled workers are going to require bigger slices of the pie that will enviably reduce the money available to lower skilled workers?

No idea, but my gut says that this is a correction.

I think you're having a kneejerk reaction to the first sentence. Read the rest of the post, where I propose how workers could be protected by less controlling laws.

Is your point that having a new consideration clause to enforceable employment contracts is as impossible as a person breathing underwater? Not that you think it's a bad idea, just that it can't be done?

I don't agree with criminalizing long commutes, nor do I agree with the minimum wage, which is a similar overstep from the government into employer-employee relationships. However, I agree with the spirit of both (protecting a worker), and think that an employment contract should be required to state the value of each party's consideration (what they're exchanging).

In other words, an employer should be required to state the forecasted value (measured in profit, updated annually) of the labor they are purchasing. As it stands, very few workers know their value to the company, which severely harms their ability to negotiate. An employee should know how exactly how much a company is profiting from their labor. If this information asymmetry is resolved, I don't think there would be a need for many employment regulations, including minimum wages, or hypothetical restrictions on long commutes, because workers will automatically have a far better negotiating position.

A company would avoid hiring people with long commutes, and people with long commutes would most likely be the ones who need the job the most. So you've hurt poor people further.

Human life, I thought it was pretty obvious that we were talking about humans, since men and women can't produce ants.

Because the production of life in a loving relationship between a man and a woman is the best way to produce life.

Because it is the only combination that produces life.

A case for why men need fathers? These Kafkaesque lines of questioning don't make it clear what people are actually upset about or want to learn more about.

So it seems you're not interested in evidence of the thing you claim to seek, because you're not willing to define what would convince you, so that I can use that to find materials that fit your criteria. Ok, have a nice day :)

>Alright, so it's not genitals

I said genitals is "a required component of the arrangement." It's just not the whole thing.

It sounds like you're upset that I am pointing out the obviousness of thing you're requiring evidence for, and you're jumping to my use of sarcasm as a technical rule break to threaten reporting me.

I'll make my point without sarcasm then: Asking for proof that "men need fathers" is so common sense and obvious that denying it suggests to me that there is no evidence that you would accept. If you're serious and actually want me to find you studies, please describe, in detail, what evidence would change your mind. I want to have a clear understanding of the requirements and goal posts before I make effort towards that. If you don't want to do that, then unfortunately I can only conclude the question was in bad faith.

It sure seems like a trick question, because it seems like you want me to define man and woman in a way that you can say "ha gotcha." Instead, I'm leaving the definition of man and woman to you, and only requiring that you know there is a difference. "AB" doesn't refer to the genital configuration, but it is a required component of the arrangement. Whatever a man is to you, in addition to having a penis, that's "A". Whatever a woman is to you, in addition to having a vagina, that's "B". If you don't see how that's a unique arrangement, then I'm afraid I can't continue to explain it while also assuming your interactions are in good faith.

How is AB different from AA or BB? Is this a trick question?

>the comradery and care two adults can have for each other can be reflected into children no matter the gender of the adults who serve as examples.

The love between a man and a woman is unique and no other arrangement replicates it.

Got me, I totally made up this brand new social idea that men need fathers. It's so new and cutting edge that nobody has ever researched it or looked into it.

I tried to read this with an open mind to learn something that may help me on a similar journey. However, I found it challenging to get any new nuggets of advice or wisdom. Maybe the "#buildinpublic" movement and interacting with that community? Otherwise it just seems like he found his groove, but it's not really transferable.

Might be a worthwhile tradeoff. Less efficient model but a clear control interface, versus more efficient model but it's a blackbox.