krapp

>Nobody does that.

Immigrants voting for harsh immigration policies and supporting ICE finding themselves and their family members targeted for deportation. People supporting data centers finding energy costs and noise pollution skyrocketing. Women and minorities voting for Trump and facing the elimination of womens' rights and their removal from the historical record and employment due to "anti-DEI" initiatives. Farmers facing the effects of Trump's trade war. Workers opposing any form of welfare, social safety net or workers' rights, even as they're laid off.

Go check out r/LeopardsAteMyFace, there are plenty of examples of people voting against their interests. People vote against their interests all the time because they've been indoctrinated and vote according to ideology, not rational self-interest.

I don't want to eat the rich. Every rich person I've seen looks like they taste awful. Like how long would you have to cook Musk just to get the stink out of the meat?

Communism is a statist implementation of socialism.

Not all socialism is communism, but all communism is socialism.

The right gets to be as right-wing as it wants and the left is stuck with pandering neoliberalism at best. Yes, it does suck.

I hate it because it's stupid.

According to the cryptography Stack Exchange, yes: https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/64757/is-it-possi...

But I don't think this describes intentionally encoding a different message, rather that different messages are hypothetically possible based on different keys but only one is intentional.

It might be feasible to encode different messages using different ciphers, like one in the text, another using steganography on the decrypted text. IDK. I'm not a cryptographer.

Wordpress wasn't even first, Movable Type was the big thing before it.

"maximum lethality, not tepid legality."

AI folks rediscovering "programming" from first principles in much the same way crypto folks rediscovered "regulation."

My personal bar for whether a project is AI slop or not (setting aside my personal misgivings about AI in general) is if you could have done it yourself without AI. If not, then the AI is doing all of the heavy lifting and the end result isn't something you made, it's something you had made. Even if you personally find it useful or entertaining, it likely isn't worth posting here.

It's weird that "should we still learn" is even a question begin asked on this forum of ostensibly intellectually curious people.

I guess a lot of folks really did just get into programming for the money and hated every minute of it.

Yes, you should learn coding if you want to. You should learn anything you want to learn.

I refuse to give my intellect over to the machine just to blindly consume its homogeneous excretions. I will keep doing what I've always done regardless of how well an AI could do it. I don't need to justify doing so, and neither do you, nor does anyone. It's OK to be a human.

The purpose of Show HN is to "show something you've made that other people can play with. HN users can try it out, give you feedback, and ask questions in the thread" (https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

That isn't possible with many AI generated projects because OP didn't write the code, probably doesn't understand the code and can't discuss the code or their process in creating it (because said process doesn't exist.) There is little if anything of substance to discuss or play with to satisfy intellectual curiosity, and in many cases the projects themselves wouldn't pass muster if written by a human, they're just vibe-coded slop.

There have been exceptions which have done well (ex:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49550375) but in that case AI was used in a specific technical context by someone knowledgeable who definitely wasn't "vibe coding" anything. But again - if a human had done all of that work, it would still have been a worthwhile post.

Show HN can't simply be a place where people post slop and everyone claps at how cool the latest models are. It can't simply be advertising for LLMs.

And I don't think you know what you're talking about. Good day.

I assume given the nature of HN that a lot of people use it as a training ground or an experiment, they just do it because they can. Some people may also believe that using an LLM is a more efficient and productive way of interacting with the site, and that it generates higher quality content than they themselves could. I suspect at least one person has tried training an LLM on their own content and posting through it. Maybe they want to farm karma, although I don't know why they would.

showdead does exactly what it says on the tin - it shows you dead comments.

That doesn't actually answer any questions, but I doubt mathematicians are entirely thrilled about the prospect of having their field automated, even if they still get paid.

I really do wonder sometimes whether these questions you post are trolling or if you truly don't understand how humans work on a fundamental level.

Have you considered that mathematicians aren't writers?

Or that your original framing was having no one, rather than "only a few people," read your work?

Do you think mathematicians would be content with having no one but AIs read their work? I don't think so.

The Soviets launched the first satellite, put the first animal into space, launched the first lunar probe, got the first photographs of the dark side of the moon, put the first human in space, put the first woman in space, put the first craft with more than one crew member into space, did the first spacewalk, sent the first probe to Venus, got the first pictures of another planet, and launched the first space station.

The moon landing was fine and all, a moment of global historic import (and propaganda value, with the US putting their flag on it like they owned the damned thing) but that's still just one victory in a race that was otherwise entirely dominated by the Soviets, and on balance what the Soviets did was of greater scientific merit than anything the US would achieve for years. Americans didn't even care about space until Russia flew Sputnik over their heads.

Companies get outcompeted, individual coders don't. And not everyone wants to be the Thomas Kinkade of coding, just cranking product out as fast as possible. And products that "use the latest tools" don't always "outcompete" those that don't. Most of what gets vibe coded - as demonstrated by what gets posted to Show HN - is qualitatively worse than the equivalent human-written software. It certainly isn't better, and there's no indication that velocity to market leads to market dominance.

To metaquote a recent thread - where is the vibe-coded replacement for Photoshop that outcompetes it? or Word? Why aren't vibe-coded games dominating Steam?

The speed alone doesn't translate to productivity and productivity alone doesn't translate to quality.

The entire draw of coding with LLMs is that you can generate programs without knowing how to code. That's literally what "vibe coding" is. Why would it surprise you that people who do know how to code, and don't hate the process the way a lot of AI enthusiasts seem to, might not find them useful?

You'll find plenty of people on HN who have this experience,but they just tend to be ridiculed or told they just haven't used AI correctly or enough. Admitting you don't use LLMs for everything, or god forbid at all, is like telling Christians you don't want to be saved.

>How is it possible that out of the millions of Americans, a guy who cant even read or send his own emails managed to work his way to the top of political system.

Because Americans don't vote for competence, they vote for entertainment value.

We do know that whales have distinct regional dialects. I would assume that any animal complex enough to have aspects of their behavior not entirely determined by genetics (in other words, taught by parents or peers) exhibits regionally distinct behavior. So yes, dogs probably have "accents." Naively, it seems like it would be weird if they didn't.

Companies will do whatever creates the most lock-in for the user and generates the most profit for themselves.

Ask yourself what's in their best interest as a business? That's probably what they'll do.

There are many religions in which "the gods" are neither omnipotent nor omniscient, but rather just more powerful beings than humans and still subject to the metaphysical laws of the universe, if not entirely to its physical laws.

Although clearly the model people are working with when they describe AI as a religion or they invoke AGI or the Singularity is based on the Abrahamic faiths rather than paganism or animism. I assume a lot of people with such beliefs also believe in some sort of simulated universe (as proxy for a metaphysical/supernatural realm) and that a sufficiently intelligent AI would simply be able to take root on reality... somehow. That direct analogy between technology, raw intellect and Godlike omnipotence has been a staple of science fiction for decades. Two early examples I can think of offhand being "the Jesus Incident" and Asimov's "The Final Question." And of course it's all over pre-LLM AI accelerationist stuff written by the likes of Ray Kurzweil and Rudy Rucker, Charles Stross' Accelerando, Vernor Vinge's Fire upon the Deep, the Culture series, etc.

Yet people do treat AI as a religion, both in terms of believing in a higher power and as a culture. They have a deep faith in using AI as a moral virtue and they view people who don't use it or who oppose it as heretical, foolish or evil, while seeing themselves as having transcended mundane humanity to some high transhuman state of being. They'll say the latter either needs to be "saved" and "accept the faith." They feel the same ecstatic joy using AI that religious people sometimes feel in church, or when they don't they feel deep personal guilt and shame. They base their entire identity around AI, seeking to find ways to incorporate it into their lives the way new converts have to make everything about their religion.

Some people literally run a "model" of ChatGPT in their minds which they ask questions of, the way people pray to God, because they implicitly trust "the voice of God" more than their own. People use AI for moral guidance, as a primary source of truth, and for emotional connection. And then people who believe in the Singularity believe AI will become so intelligent that the rules of reality will simply cease to exist and the Eschaton will reward the faithful with infinite abundance and eternal life and punish the unbelievers with endless torture. There is a theology and an eschatology at work. You can see it in almost every AI related thread now. The language of AI and the language of religion are intersecting.

I don't think viewing AIs as gods is the wrong analogy, rather like any religion it's wrong outside of an academic sense because obviously gods aren't real. Viewing AI as simply a tool in the same vein as printing presses is ignoring the greater cultural context forming around it, and that context is worth paying attention to. One claim theists often make is that the secular world fails to provide the sense of belonging, meaning and community that religion one did, and it seems obvious that modern always-online and always-commercial society alienates and dehumanizes people, leading to a longing for real connection that it can't provide. AI is clearly filling that void for many people, and it is becoming a secular religion in many real ways.

Aliens and advanced technology aren't going to be involved.

And they made them into paint called "mummy brown." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy_brown

Back-and-forth conversation isn't high quality by definition, it's just the baseline for not being bad enough to downvote. I think Hacker News wants the baseline to be some degree of exceptional.