mannanj

I don’t like how it’s a human aiming to portray the ai generation with their taste and judgements about it but then becoming lazy and quitting on that and leaving in the ai generated portrayal about its own judgment in the site.

Just share your opinions, dude, we get its ai generated but share your own taste. We want to know what YOU think. Stop being shy and lazy.

So do we have another forum for open discussions with bright people? not all the bright people want to build something merely for making someone rich at the expense of morals.

We aren't. Most people are silent majority, just not sharing their true opinions out of fear, laziness, or some other reason like maybe just the bias of how most living entities function and also related to how the bystander effect also works.

Then, who is "we" here giving the appearance of a consensus opinion here and in mainstream? It's a vocal minority, it's the powerful, it's the causes they fund and put resources behind to continue to preserve their causes. And now today, it's astroturfing, fake AI-LLM-bots almost indistinguishable from you and I. Don't mistake artificial consensus for reality.

> Why is big tech getting away with so much more?

IMO Because the majority of people are passive, standing by, tolerating abuse and trickery by the minority. This is a perpetual cycle in humanity: those minority use their power and leverage and abuse their positions until they are ousted. We have tolerated this because we haven't stood up yet and acted to change things and demand equal enforcement of the laws that appear to apply to us but not to them. If history says anything, they are afraid and panicking and will continue to be more abusive until they push our buttons more and more, and usually it explodes in their face because they still need us (which is why mainstream rich people push robotics and automation and AI down our throats so aggressively because they know all this) and yet never have minority humans won that approach before. Leadership always changes. Life always changes, and no force can stay dominant for ever.

I can't prove this, but as someone who has noticed recent changes, I believe this has been also achieving attention of the leadership at HN and moderation behavior/flags/system has changed.

Certain opinions, topics, responses get flagged greater now; ones that disagree with a certain political standpoint or that criticize the intel community apparatus get flagged and censored now here. I used to see flagged content where the OP was removed only for bigotry and clearly abusive cases, now its for cases where people feel uncomfortable and strongly disagree.

edit: recently for the first time, I started to feel this is no longer a safe/trusted place for the original hacker ethos it founded itself on.

Maybe they haven't suffered consequences because the law has continued to slowly break down and erode on account of (no pun intended) favoring a select few with special privileges.

Doesn't the future look like we are continuing this cycle where the law is only for some people? I'd like to hope not.

and for some reason, some of those people jump on these posts when you name that our hacker news-emperor-forum has no clothes.

We keep perpetuating one of the largest psyops and disingenuous campaigns of our time. This collective psychosis of "blaming" AI for things made by humans and refusing to hold humans accountable for their transgressions is sad and heartbreaking.

How do we keep falling for this, over and over again? It's old tactics in new names; stop falling for tricks people use to evade your scrutiny and accountability and grow up past your infantilism and naivety. If you are reading this you are likely an adult, and probably a smart one. You can handle some discomfort and I implore you to see past this mainstream carricature of the truth.

This is so different from the OP's site. This is so much better, trying it out now.

I'd rather read raw prompts. Most people can consume the slop if they wish.

If I came off judgy or higher than thou, I apologize, it wasn't my attempt.

I meant to gracefully share what I did, and hope to have no offended anyone.

homer eating that pie was so good!

They don't ask for license plates. At least through a camera tech like Flock, it isn't super easy to pick up a vin. So thinking this through more, at least having an insurance agency have your vin isn't as bad as having a flock & flock affiliated agency have your license plate - because if flock & flock affiliated dont have your vin they may never have the vin to find you via insurance company.

Is it that the friction to use privacy is too high and not that interest in privacy is actually a niche concern?

I imagine its friction and not indicative of interest itself.

The convenience here for you is CarPlay though. You could instead use a different more accurate gps device you plugin that doesnt have the data leak issues concerned in articles like this one. Then if you really needed you could pull out a sort of external monitor stick it over the other display when carplaying and when needing car-vital features you need the car display for, pull over and temporarily do that thing then pull your extra monitor out again and keep going.

I think maybe being grounded has changed - I would be comfortable doing what I described but I imagine your comfort with your preexisting solution means your ground has shifted and a reality check means you woudl rather give away your data than take the higher friction option?

And the DMV (Department of Motor vehicle Services) has also sold registration data. In California, and Texas, they have been fined for this - I'm unsure they aren't completely barred from using a loophole to still do that.

This is why I'm a vocal advocate for having an LLC own any vehicles you might drive. It protects you from the license-plate reading lookup as well from Flock et all. Though I don't know it guarantees you can't be looked up by insurance it's resistance by one more bit of friction. The vehicle I drive now is an old 2012 Lexus owned by Montana LLC and it also has no smart technology and very little insurance costs.

It's AI's Fault. It's AI doing the horrible things to humans. It's AI stealing your wealth. It's AI lying you to. It's AI being unethical. It's AI having the moral issues. It's AI that could destroy humanity. It's AI that's using up all your water. It's AI consuming the majority of the resources. It's AI hiding what it does and how it works. It's AI that's not transparent and accountable. It's AI that's not responsible. It's the AI making decisions. It's AI leading to war. It's the AI distracting you. It's the AI.

It's not a human.

Says the human, masquerading as AI.

sarcasm is often a joke on you, lol. I get it now. but it can be hard to get across, especially if someone doesn't know you.

I feel this is another straw man conflating technology use with who uses it or who creates it. If an AI, a technology, cheats, lies and steals, it's created to do this. Whether or not a human intentionally did that, they did not intentionally release it with the proper safeguards to stop that behavior. They did not take responsibility of the AI to make it safe.

Then humans may use these tools, a technology, again and cause harm. Whether or not that was their intent, it happened, and then if the humans avoid responsibility for that, it is still the human who lied, cheated and coordinated because a technology acting on their behalf did the thing.

This is then, a problem of human responsibility avoidance and lack of accountability by society. This is as much an AI doing those things as it's the gun that got up on its own and murdered a neighbor. Don't get confused and tricked by these articles attempting to justify responsibility avoidance and a lack of accountability by the public of the humans creating and using these tools.

we used to think electrons were the smallest particles, until they were not.

and I think talking about breaking molecular bonds though or bringing "fundamental forces" into this is misleading and disingenuous. the point of the OP is to say, "you can take anything in a small enough dose and its not poisonous"

And when you say prions or whatever like you were, my point is if you take small enough doses even of those, you won't be poisoned. you get what I mean, so lets not waste each others time on trying to confuse impossibilities with reality. you won't be getting hurt or die or meaningfully poisoned by ingesting one "prion" or particle of "strange matter". and now when you describe any "poison" with this model, say you ingest 1 particle of even a pure poison, you won't be getting hurt or die.

You think you can't make those any smaller?

That's a good definition. Still, you can take it literally - anything small enough doesn't really harm you. and meanings can be stretched to support whatever conclusions you want.

So for mold, low enough doses aren't poison? Can't you just say this about anything. If you have poison in a low enough dose it's not poison. So it means jsut about nothing to say alcohol isn't poisonous because you can have a small dose of it.

Ah I see. I didn't read the article and just shared my opinion about something unrelated. Thanks.

The big psyop/trick is that "AI development has to slow down" and not that we hit limits with the technology or the technology is immature.

Either way it's a win-win for whoever sells that message because you make the makers and the warners the center of attention. And when they say "we are considering slowing down" they mean "if we get enough money to slow down we'll do it". And of course they never want you to think AI is a technology employed by humans who need be changed, not the technology. So as long as you engage this massive straw man to focus on the wrong thing you do nothing to hold the leaders accountable for their harmful and selfish actions and decisions for society.

I think we should describe a new effect infecting mainstream society:

- AI companies and the rich have increasingly pushed an agenda on the populace that most people didn't want, and the foundation of work in AI was formed by theft.

- Theft of creative work from millions of people, and a selective enforcement of law and compromise of investigatory authorities has demonstrated the law, morals, and the welfare of most people doesn't matter for people in power.

- This is the real "less collaborative" nature of the world where we find ourselves in. Add to that the increasing push for war by our leaders and rich too, people often shielded from the consequences, and you have a net less collaborative world.

It actually isn't even AI, but the same people pushing it are the same ones compromising collaboration for most people.

no analytic purposes lets them get your whole chats they just can't train on it.

I mirror this. Also, if online is acceptable, I recommend the options I listed in my OP.

I find men's groups with more structure do help with those problems you described. I wouldn't be so early to dismiss and suggest considering it with an open mind. At least for me and many others I Know, men's groups with a clear order of gather to discuss, and require and ask for consent before giving advice, with that recurring meeting being the main source of socialization; do not have as much of a pecking order nor lame topics. They have more authenticity and connection with the pretense being around connection and acceptance without performance.

If you want regular socializing with 2-3 good friends though, I think the friends made from a men's group would be closer to what you are seeking than from a random hobby-based group.

edit: in re to "even without competition a pecking order gets established" my experience has shown this to be oversimplifying it. The "pecking order" in a mens group is way different from a different group. the pecking order in men's groups with a structur-based leader, is that the leader gets the "alpha" status if there was one and if they are a good leader they aren't there to abuse that privilege. But since they should be providing it professionally (paid service) it isn't mixed with friendship as much. At least the "pecking order" there is oriented around serving you rather than random socialization without that purpose.

It tells me that AI companies are just another mechanism to extract and extort value from the masses for the rich.

Just another rich man’s trick

Perhaps the last one before they destroy that world and try to hide away as people forget and history is rewritten again. I don’t think they’ll succeed this time.

Yes but what about “analytical purposes” what does that cover and can you turn it off? I have found out you cannot. It’s the Trojan backdoor to your data.