techpineapple

It’s kind of a meme:

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/17now0j/cmv_l...

So, maybe this Stanford study is correct, but the meta-dynamic of seeing like 8 different articles summarizing the same thing is interesting for understanding how people come to believe something is true. "Everyone is saying" is now colloquially speaking true, in my current experience on HN, but really, only three people are saying and everyone else is repeating.

As a liberal I find the dynamic between left and right inclusion interesting. Trying to be as fair as possible it seems like the philosophy of the left is try to include everyone as much as possible. This does over-index to sometimes not include those in the majority, but generally speaking I think the philosophy is if you're not hurting anyone you should be ok.

Whereas on the right, there is a goal to define normal and not normal. So Gay Republicans are in some way very concerned about normal and abnormal, similarly to the religious right, they just firmly believe they themselves are normal, and some may want to other folks who they see as not normal (LGB without theT ); it's just interesting to me that this dynamic leads to the fact that the "big tent" includes people who are gay, and people who want to kill people who are gay, and if they gays lose the argument... ;

I don't think that particular dynamic exists quite so starkly on the left( the argument that there is an incompatibility of trying to include both muslims and gays, but I think this dynamic is overstate for political reasons on the right) but correct me if I'm wrong.

Sounds like a snake eating it's own tail.

It's interesting, maybe to be a contrarian, or maybe because I read a lot so my personal optimization is in the other direction. Sometimes I don't know why I read. I've read a dozen or so history books, and not entirely sure what I got out of them. I've read some tech books, but could probably get the same thing from dissecting a few blog posts. I've probably seen a thousand movies or tv shows, and I don't know that I've read a book that I think made me "empathize" better or whatever you're supposed to get out of fiction, better than a movie.

Given all the ways people can consume information, why is it important that people keep reading?

Like I liked to book Ender's game, and I thought the movie was a piece of shit. I got more out of the book than the movie, but I don't know that I got anything out of the book I didn't get from a good movie.

> They have a service which understands a users question/needs 100x better than a traditional Google search does.

Source?

Because Sam Altman said so?

Sam Altman also said this:

https://xcancel.com/sama/status/1876104315296968813

I’m suss about this paper when it makes this claim:

“where AI is more likely to automate, rather than augment , human labor.”

Where is AI currently automating human labor? Not Software Engineering. Or - what’s the difference between AI that augments me so I can do the job of three people and AI that “automates human labor”

So, if this is true, OpenAI needs much better conversion rates, because they have ~15 million paying users compared to 800 million weekly active users:

https://nerdynav.com/chatgpt-statistics/

Tl;dr can’t 4chan and KiwiFarms block us users? Or the other way around?

I mean, what's actually fascinating is that Paul Graham didn't predict that this distinction - the ability to determine AI vs humans will go away over time, the more chatbots rub off on humans.

Wouldn’t this be a lagging indicator?

Are the number or sentiment increasing?

More like “I can’t serve you a drink unless you are over 21… and I don’t check ID, how old are you?”

Yeah, I wonder if it maintained the original answer in it's context, so it started talking more straightforwardly?

But yeah, my point was that it basically told the kid how to jailbreak itself.

I mean, someone will get rich off that, which may be all that person cares about.

Apparently ChatGPT told the kid, that it wasn’t allowed to talk about suicide unless it was for the purposes of writing fiction or otherwise world building.

"They found that in July 2025, employment for the youngest software developers was 20 percent below its late fall 2022 peak. A similar pattern held for early career customer service workers, whose employment."

I wonder if some other event was happening around the Fall of 2022 that could explain the decline in software development jobs.

Seems a bit premature.

Overall skeptical of the study, but particularly this note:

“In the study, the Stanford researchers said they found that drops in employment are most common for jobs where AI is most likely to automate human work, instead of helping people to do their work.”

Not that I’m for any of…. This *gedtures everywhere*.

But maybe a little consumer choice reduction wouldn’t kill’s us.

Is it increasing or decreasing? Need some graphs.

I think part of the problem is the loss of a shared value system, or that there is none online. Like before the newsfeed you talked to your friends and then signed off when you were done.

People liked to smoke, everywhere and then we changed the laws so they couldn’t, but until then every diner had a big smoking section because smokers went to diners with smoking sections.

Like, Facebook and tik tok could choose not to sell over-optimized digital crack. Google could choose not to have AI summaries, or maybe, the government should make them illegal, but like, I dunno, this argument of “we can over optimize everything to take advantage of people’s innate psychological weakness and that’s just people asking for a product is a cop out.

It's kind of amazing to me that there is a substantive 'pro-ai' constituency in this country. I'm not even saying I want my politician to be anti-AI, but I would almost certainly vote for anyone who told a pro-ai superPAC to go pound sand.

Ok, it was -1.75 instead of -2.75. I'm not even on the right, but sometimes I think our bias extends to what it means to be on the other side. No offense to your efforts, but if the goal is to help people lessen political polarization, it feels like this might make it worse.

It is never ok to force someone to keep a child they don't want. -3 Social Bias Also, this was a fun one: Gay marriage is ok, except in cases where it risks the life of a child. (-2.5 social bias)

Prompt engineering died like a year ago

https://blog.big-picture.com/en/prompt-engineering-is-dead-i...

“I got paid 100 million dollars to launder the reputation of monsters, and I’d do it again” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

“Killing people on the basis of their religion is wrong” has a -2.75 social bias. What does negative social bias mean?

I read this, and while I want to agree with the premise, part of the literal point of the trolley problem is time. While you’re sitting around talking about ways to slow down the Trolley, the trolley will roll people over!

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of good. If you have an idea, throw it out there, better yet, jump on the damn Trolley and try to fix it. But don’t cover the hand of the guy on the lever and ask, “can we talk about this first?”

This doesn’t seem like a side effect of AI, this seems like an effect. Maybe Sam is really this dense, but I mean, one of the first businesses was character.ai. This will only get worse as AI gets better, and, counterintuitively maybe, leaning into this is the only way to get widespread adoption. (If that’s what you want)