notavalleyman

We're just asking questions, man.

Does the CIA control my kitchen appliances? There's no evidence that they don't, any why wouldn't they?

Actually here's a clip of a man 50 years ago admitting that the CIA do have an electronics division. So it's quite likely that they never gave up their aspirations to control my teapot.

And here's the Wikipedia page for qassam solemani, you can see how the weapon which killed him involved electronics.

It's hard to deny that the CIA control my kitchen appliances, stay tuned for more of this series, where we'll also cover my washing machine and garage door

Yes, that's exactly what you did. You cited that the us government did heroin or whatever, to back up the argument that the headline to the op post is so provocative that it must be government propaganda.

That's a garbage line of logic.

> What do you mean, "conspiracy garbage"

"I've read about the US government doing bad things in the past, and so, I'm allowed to say that any article with a headline which I find provocative, is paid government propaganda"

That's a garbage line of reasoning and I don't care for it.

Did the "academic and scholar" you cited, write anything at all, to back up the claim that the op link is paid propaganda by the government?

It's conspiracy garbage to cite "huh did you know a highly respected academic says that Jose in Arizona smuggled heroin? Because I read this scholar's work, which means I'm now qualified to read a RAND study headline and conclude that it's worded so provocatively that it must be government propaganda"

Okay but did you know there's a man in prison in Arizona named Jose, who's in for heroin smuggling?

Heroin smuggling is bad, and I've imagined that someone paid for the OP article to have this headline. Putting the same logic together which you employed - it must have been Jose who forced rand to publish the study with such a provocative headline.

This conspiracy garbage is so tiring.

If this is new to you, read arizona court dockets. Trust me, Jose is guilty, the evidence was airtight, so he MUST have paid rand, according to your garbage conspiracy logic

> What kind of evidence would satisfy you?

Any evidence at all whatsoever, supporting your claim that

> so it asks RAND to publish something that will drum up support for it.

Or any of the other fake conspiracy theories invented and spread with no evidence, in this comment thread

> so it asks RAND to publish something that will drum up support for it.

Please share your evidence for this conjecture, and also share your evidence for how it relates to the OP. Because you are just creating fake conspiracy theories with no evidence, just like the poster above

Your determination of who funds the agency has no relevance to the fake invented conspiracy theory which the post above is spreading.

It's a paper about a study which RAND did. You can click into read the paper and see if the headline fits.

Your fake conspiracy theory so far says - that the government is paying rand to only pretend to do a study. When in fact, the study is just a smokescreen to justify writing a headline to influence people's opinions? What? Why not just read the study and then come back and suggest alternative headlines. If the headline was different, would we still think is a psyop?

> the government seems to want you to think that the alphabet agencies need more money and/or power.

Yeah maybe I guess, but also maybe someone just did a sensible study and titled it appropriately. I think my theory has far more evidence than yours (which is simply: how you felt after reading the page title)

It would be nice if there were sources for this.

It reads as though the author is intimately familiar with Frank Herbert's life, but it is anonymous with no sourcing.

There are real spies in this story, who are committing truly evil acts in the world, and using technology to further their aims of spreading malware and destroying international space conventions.

And yet the poster finds Microsoft the bad guys in this story?

This is a story about our international enemies using advanced western tech to develop malware, with which to attack us.

It's right to be outraged, but not at Microsoft

Because in the absence of any exculpatory information, the user described climbing into a rideshare (whose driver has every reason to expect digital payment) - and then telling the driver the ride won't actually be paid, unless the driver deviates from the app GPS. And, furthermore, not leaving the person's vehicle without police intervention.

It really doesn't even matter about the card and ATM and whatnot - if the user felt they were entitled to a free ride to the ATM, against the driver's will, to the extent that the cops needed to get involved - then the passenger is totally out of order.

I'm curious about the anecdote you shared -

1. You don't pay cash on those apps you mentioned - afaik all save a card number on file. It wouldn't make sense that you could climb into an Uber and then complain that you forgot to bring cash?

2. On ride-sharing apps, typically you as the passenger can very easily change the destination mid-ride. If you decide to swing by an ATM, you can do that in the app, and the driver's GPS is seamlessly updated. Typically you dont verbally ask the driver to take you somewhere off-route.

It sounds like you were really unreasonable in this scenario, but perhaps the cash/card situation is different where you live?

Are you suggesting that there's some connection between Open AI, and the story you linked to?

Doesn't look like anything to me

> like to remind people

Is this phrase used figuratively, or are there actual times when you've exercised this preference upon someone?

I think if you said that to me, in a tone which implied you were enjoying saying it, I'd probably ask you why it's relevant. For example, can you demonstrate that Pulitzer Prizes are generally awarded to "yellow journalists"? Or can you show how the recipients of the prize are in any way awarded for behaviour which you're saying Pulitzer the person exhibited. Because it just sounds like a quirk of history, rather than revealing any important facts about journalism or how prizes are awarded

The user I was replying to wrote

> This kind of discussion is suppressed on HN

Typically people wouldn't use "suppressed" to mean: "there are disconnected users of this website who are, without coordination, independently flagging this submission in deliberate bad faith".

Typically "suppression" would refer to a coordinated deliberate act.

So I was simply replying to the most common interpretation of the user's words.

I understood them to be saying that a deliberate (and not accidental) attempt is being made to prevent "this kind of discussion" from happening.

An article whose follow-on discussion is mostly offtopic conspiracy theories (which they were) ought not to be here, imo, but maybe I'm wrong on the guideline etiquette

I clicked flag. It's not suppression. Actually your knee-jerk "suppression" claim is pointing in the direction of why I clicked flag.

It's because people are unable to handle these topics without delving into conspiracy theories.

You had two paths you could have gone down.

Path one - it's active suppression, which means mens rea, which means someone is out there silencing me, which means a conspiracy is active, to shut down criticism of Israel. Which means the Elders of Zion are at it again.

Path two - hn users have clicked flag, so it's flagged

Why did you choose path one? What about this topic is breaking peoples' brains so badly? That's why I clicked it. I don't want hn users to verbalise their anti-jewish theories.

What about the story in that link implies a conspiracy of Jewish lobbyists? It's a story about an asset manager who was due to donate and then changed his mind. You don't need to posit a shadowy cabal of Jewish or Israeli conspirators to make sense of these stories

That's a link about a donation, from an asset management company, not some "lobby". It doesn't even say that the donor is Jewish.

I don't think it's okay for you to draw a straight line, from an asset management company, to the Jewish lobby bogeyman.

You don't need to posit a Jewish conspiracy when reading that link. It's about someone who was due to donate money and then changed their mind.

That looks like one of the chat characters which anyone can create and share.

A tab? Can you take a screenshot? Sorry to be blunt but can you not dripfeed information?

What are you seeing on chatgpt which leads you to think that you have access?

What did you see that made you think "OpenAI wants to hype something right now"? I didn't see anything coming from them except Altman saying the leak was "unfortunate". I don't believe they are generating any of the Q* hype.

Doesn't seem to be in a usable state yet. I created an account and realised there's not actually any features to play with yet. I gave a URL for scheduled reports but I cannot configure anything about them.

You didn't offer me any way to delete my account and remove the email address I saved in your system. I hope you don't start sending me emails, after not giving me an ability to delete the account

I really thought this was a reference to the dropbox showhn - "you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

> Levidow, Levidow & Oberman said in a statement on Thursday that its lawyers “respectfully” disagreed with the court that they had acted in bad faith. “We made a good-faith mistake in failing to believe that a piece of technology could be making up cases out of whole cloth,” it said.

Seems like they still don't get it.

It's not good faith representation of your client, it's not good lawyering to interrogate a chatbot for your case. Even if it could somehow only ever tell the truth.

It's not a "good faith mistake" - so I think they still don't understand the problem here.

It might be representative of greater society: when people interact with ChatGPT, they treat it as an oracle. I see it all the time on r/chatgpt - people say, "I asked ChatGPT about my long lost grandparent whose life I am researching. Apparently my grandma was a pilot!"

Seems like the lawyers are shocked the oracle lied but still think they were right to consult it.

Nobody has pointed me towards evidence to that effect. So no

Sorry but I still don't agre with you - actually from what you described here, it sounds like Chappel and the FBI are doing their job properly in infiltrating terror groups

>There is significant evidence pointing to the fact that if the FBI had

At the risk of true scotmanning, no, I didn't come away from either the guardian nor wiki links thinking the evidence was "significant".

Actually I didn't see any evidence in either link, that without the FBI, no attack would have happened.

What evidence do you think could lead you to conclude, that no attack would happen if not for the FBI?

>the most likely scenario (and most common on

What evidence led you to think this is MOST likely - or in fact has ever happened in history?