celdon25

Listen to yourself. I'll write in my style, you write in yours. In what world is it anything less than obnoxious to say that? Time to hit the logout button for me permanently I say. https://imgur.com/a/L8hoqhp

You're making straw man examples, but if you want to understand more, I suggest any paper on Bitcoin.

Personally, I'm not a fan of it. But the thesis is real, and it might have delivered on its promise if the world wasn't actually full of scumbags and scammers (each one accidentally contributing to making Big Banks look like the lesser of the evils).

I take it you've never known anyone who has tried to run even a small consumer AI company. Do you think that they all independently come up with the same censorship rules, despite no law mandating them? Why do you think that is? That they are just that well-thought out that everyone happens to agree with that same intersecting boundary?

The author just died, and is now dead, and unable to provide an opinion, like many others who have fallen under hard times. Those with privilege therefore tend to have their opinions over-represented in the public square.

I’d settle for a different someone at this point. What were you expecting me to say?

I think it’s safe to say that many of us feel a lot less safe directly because of these policies and the inferred intentions of the company behind them. Nobody is arguing for unsafe models. We just don’t want to live in the plot of Deus Ex.

Fun fact: If you show fable this post, it will route you to 4.8 automatically.

It's still a vote, and votes don't require reasons, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. There's a growing chorus of those who are fed up with rules for thee but not for me.

I think Grok on x.com is a reasonable case study. There’s the stuff we heard about and then there’s a separate category of things that weren’t newsworthy, and only the newsworthy things prompted changes to be made.

Anonymous is the hero we need here for sure

Elon is brilliant when it comes to hardware. But unfortunately with xAI, he went on a firing spree, PayPal Mafia style, just like with Twitter when he bought it, shortly before doing another hiring drive, and failing to hire software engineers at scale.

The datacenter deals came after. But now, the man who promised the world an AI system that defends free speech and is “pro-human”, is instead selling to his competitors and lowering the daily app usage limits of his own Grok by an order of magnitude (really).

If you’re dealing with the world’s richest man, you can predict that money will come before other concerns despite other rhetoric. Interesting strategy though!

Edit: To be fair, they did decide that hardware was "the bottleneck" according to an interview I saw last year. But I firmly believe they underestimated the software problem (and their app was/is riddled with them).

My lived experience doesn’t care what the downvotes say (many here are privileged, after all), and it is only a matter of time imo unless something is done about the industry to change course.

No, yes, I know, and it doesn’t affect my point. Thanks for your concern, HN!

Not sure if you saw this, but it says at the footer:

> 1.Methodology: The study was carried out in collaboration with IPSOS among 19,000 adults aged 18 to 75 across 18 countries, between 12 January and 16 February 2026.

Survey methods: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/survey-methods-ipsos-uk

If the Ipsos stock price is any indicator of surveys still being viable in 2026, then I can only wonder what actually motivates comments like this.

That being said, if the actual study cannot be reproduced, it's not science. So I'm looking forward to seeing the method and not the conclusion scrutinized. There's a lot of cognitive dissonance right now, especially in the US, when it comes to perceptions about mental health.

The specific text reads like a favor to Elon Musk's xAI, since "Truth-seeking" is the buzzword Elon Musk frequently used to talk about Grok:

Sec. 3

Unbiased AI Principles.

It is the policy of the United States to promote the innovation and use of trustworthy AI. To advance that policy, agency heads shall, consistent with applicable law and in consideration

of guidance issued pursuant to section 4 of this order, procure only those LLMs developed in accordance with the following two principles (Unbiased AI Principles):

(a) Truth-seeking. LLMs shall be truthful in responding to user prompts seeking factual information or analysis. LLMs shall prioritize historical accuracy, scientific inquiry, and objectivity, and shall acknowledge uncertainty where reliable information is incomplete or contradictory.

(b) Ideological Neutrality. LLMs shall be neutral, nonpartisan tools that do not manipulate responses in favor of ideological dogmas such as DEI. Developers shall not intentionally encode partisan or ideological judgments into an LLM's outputs unless those judgments are prompted by or otherwise readily accessible to the end user.

That stopped being super frustrating for me about a year ago. Wishing it were the other way though…

Well, the background checks in the US at least have to follow laws.

Then theres reference checks, less formal but generally still follow some kind of rigor or process and you generally know who they’re going to talk to.

Then there’s the third type of investigation, where they actually don’t tell you they’re doing it, may or may not admit to doing it, and you have no way of knowing whether you were singled out for some reason, assuming you are able to find out it happened in the first place.

And good luck searching for any recourse if ethics or even laws (such as HIPAA) are ignored in that situation, even if it’s for example a b2c healthcare company that is expected to set an example for health privacy standards, rather than calling everyone you knew to probe their memories of how healthy you appeared to be at the time, then using that information to evaluate your performance with different criteria than other employees.

Sure, it’s not a typical scenario, but if it happens to you, you’ll probably never be able to scoff at a comment like this again. You might never get over it.

That depends on what the definition of “is” is. But kidding aside, only now that we are talking about tech CEOs are people suddenly disliking the AI psychosis term in large numbers. Seems like privilege to me. I’d be interested to see/do a rigorous statistical check on aggregate word choices in these threads to confirm.

Seems like privilege to soften the term only now that we are talking about CEOs.

You’re right, we should kick them while they are down instead, starving them of all “companionship” (otherwise, how could we uphold our current values as a society)? We need to keep producing a regular supply of [redacted] to rally people against in order to maintain the illusion of morale.

This is a terrible way to soften an obvious alignment failure with AI rollout.

Easily fixable with another KPI to measure the gaming itself :P

It’s almost as if their sales are plummeting and they’re desperate or something.

Sounds like yet another story about the Goliaths of the AI world ruining the Davids. They even “respected” him by posting his details to the world, in a possibly illegal way.

Do you?

Oh don’t get me wrong, I’m unironically looking forward to the other shoe dropping next term, so that we can finally get a generation of politicians that can bring on the great reset. Too much legacy software running on the kernel and it can no longer be maintained.

Twitter files

Who is “they”? I voted on party lines, state, federal, and local. The way that people on the left shut down discussions more readily is what contributed to it, using tactics such as bringing particular candidates into the discussion despite me never volunteering that I was pro-Trump per se in this thread.

It’s probably going to be awhile before I’m sympathetic to the “other” side though (it’s still two sides of the same turd after all), seems some things haven’t changed yet.

If it helps you feel better, I voted for free speech and feel that the administration did not hold up their end of the deal. The FTC’s recent “debanking” letter to the payment processors is just theater until something changes. I’ll leave it at that.

Getting “literally who” vibes from the list of execs that were listed with a job title but not a company name.

Mobile browser, if that makes a difference (maybe one of the people on the list helped me downsize as well at some point without me realizing it).