5 ms·

What a cynical input into the conversation. First you assume that this project even existing is some kind of statement about how important it is; a connection

What a cynical input into the conversation. First you assume that this project even existing is some kind of statement about how important it is; a connection I can't make myself unless I try to be extremely cynical. If you actually look at the project website you'll see that the main mirrors are currently down due to high download costs. Then you smugly dismiss the entire project as a GPT-2 weakness highlighter, but not without wrapping it in some passive aggressive faux concern ("Oh is this trying to be good? Silly me, I thought this was a showcase for how to be bad!"). And then you assume that this game that thousands of people (although none of them were you) have enjoyed playing is probably an advertisement for an academic lab. Despite there being almost no evidence for it. Can I be controversial now and ask: What's with the bile?

hombre_fatal 7y ago
HN is the only community I know of that has people that will not only call out this kind of attitude, but will do so in an absolutely scathing, bedrock-hitting way. I hope this is something that never changes about HN. That was a pleasure to read.
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
>> First you assume that this project even existing is some kind of statement about how important it is; a connection I can't make myself unless I try to be extremely cynical. That would be cynical, but I did not make this assumption. I questioned the justification of the high cost to maintain the project, not the existence of the project per se. I did not doubt that people enjoyed the project but, again, I don't understand how a research lab justifies paying such a high cost to provide entertainment. If the project could be maintained for free then I would not have any questions. But if a lab is spending $10k to keep a game running then yes, I have to wonder why. I do think that the game shows up GPT-2's weaknesses. Do you really think it's "bile" or "cynical" to recognise weaknesses of a technology? Perhaps I'm cynical to assume it's advertisement. I apologise if that's the case. Note also that accusing me of bile is a personal comment that I think is unnecessary.
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  Also, can I please ask you to tone down the god-moding if you want to have a disagreement? "passive aggressive faux concern", "bile", what's all that about? Why do you think you have an insight to my state of mind and emotions after reading a comment I made on the internet? This is just frustrating. Is that how you want the internet to be, really? A bunch of people assuming each other are either assholes or idiots, and treating each other accordingly?
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    Agreed. That was much more aggressive than it should have been. I don't think I have an insight into your state of mind, and I'm sorry for using that to land some stupid burn. The point would have come across just as well without my bile. You're right, that's not what I want the Internet to be. In that spirit, I would very politely suggest that you read your original comment and consider if it represents what you want the Internet to be.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
      Well, thank you, that's very welcome and I feel bad for making you apologise. I'm glad you see things this way! So, I'm looking at my comment again and I think I should have omitted the following two sentences: >> I don't get the feeling it was setup to demonstrate _weakness_ though. I think it was meant to demonstrate strngths. >> I suppose it's just advertising for the BYU Perception, Control and Cognition Lab, but it sounds awfuly expensive for advertising for an academic group. The first one does sound as if I'm taking a swipe at the research team. This was not my intention but it came out all wrong. The second one makes assumptions about the motivation of the BYU research team, and I should have kept those to myself. My original question, what justifies the high cost of the product, I feel is valid so I wouldn't change it. But, clearly, I took it farther than I should have. I apologise that I didn't think my comment through enough so as to avoid having it come across as an attack on the BYU team and I'm sorry it upset you.

hombre_fatal 7y ago

HN is the only community I know of that has people that will not only call out this kind of attitude, but will do so in an absolutely scathing, bedrock-hitting way. I hope this is something that never changes about HN. That was a pleasure to read.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

>> First you assume that this project even existing is some kind of statement about how important it is; a connection I can't make myself unless I try to be extremely cynical. That would be cynical, but I did not make this assumption. I questioned the justification of the high cost to maintain the project, not the existence of the project per se. I did not doubt that people enjoyed the project but, again, I don't understand how a research lab justifies paying such a high cost to provide entertainment. If the project could be maintained for free then I would not have any questions. But if a lab is spending $10k to keep a game running then yes, I have to wonder why. I do think that the game shows up GPT-2's weaknesses. Do you really think it's "bile" or "cynical" to recognise weaknesses of a technology? Perhaps I'm cynical to assume it's advertisement. I apologise if that's the case. Note also that accusing me of bile is a personal comment that I think is unnecessary.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
Also, can I please ask you to tone down the god-moding if you want to have a disagreement? "passive aggressive faux concern", "bile", what's all that about? Why do you think you have an insight to my state of mind and emotions after reading a comment I made on the internet? This is just frustrating. Is that how you want the internet to be, really? A bunch of people assuming each other are either assholes or idiots, and treating each other accordingly?
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  Agreed. That was much more aggressive than it should have been. I don't think I have an insight into your state of mind, and I'm sorry for using that to land some stupid burn. The point would have come across just as well without my bile. You're right, that's not what I want the Internet to be. In that spirit, I would very politely suggest that you read your original comment and consider if it represents what you want the Internet to be.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    Well, thank you, that's very welcome and I feel bad for making you apologise. I'm glad you see things this way! So, I'm looking at my comment again and I think I should have omitted the following two sentences: >> I don't get the feeling it was setup to demonstrate _weakness_ though. I think it was meant to demonstrate strngths. >> I suppose it's just advertising for the BYU Perception, Control and Cognition Lab, but it sounds awfuly expensive for advertising for an academic group. The first one does sound as if I'm taking a swipe at the research team. This was not my intention but it came out all wrong. The second one makes assumptions about the motivation of the BYU research team, and I should have kept those to myself. My original question, what justifies the high cost of the product, I feel is valid so I wouldn't change it. But, clearly, I took it farther than I should have. I apologise that I didn't think my comment through enough so as to avoid having it come across as an attack on the BYU team and I'm sorry it upset you.