5 ms·

So what would constitute him not "getting defensive"? He's supposed to agree with you, or not express an opinion? Anything else short of this would be "defensi

by nn3 4y ago

So what would constitute him not "getting defensive"? He's supposed to agree with you, or not express an opinion? Anything else short of this would be "defensive" right? This whole idea that defending your positions in arguments is somehow a bad thing is a really odd modern development that I never understood.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
TBH I think even a basic "I considered your point, but X and Y factors seemed to mitigate it enough for my standards, defined by P and Q. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding anything" would do a lot. It's important to always show you've considered that you're wrong about something.
searine 4y ago
The correct response to a criticism you disagree with is "thanks".
- trap_goes_hot 4y ago
  You're right. That response is sufficient for people who provide it in good faith. There are bad faith actors who aren't happy unless you actually respond in detail and convince them otherwise. They're more than happy to raise a ruckus about how "XYZ ignored my feedback and criticism".
  - searine 4y ago
    Thanks.
Barrin92 4y ago
I'm not sure what OPs particular point was, but Yan seemed to argue over and over again that testing Galactica with adversial inputs is why "we can't have nice things" which to me seems not just defensive but kind of comical. Any AI model needs to be designed with adversarial usage in mind. And I don't even think random people trying to abuse the thing for five minutes to get it to output false or vile info counts as a sophisticated attack. Clearly before they published that demo Facebook had again put zero thought into what bad actors can do with this technology and the appropriate response to people testing that out is certainly not blaming them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tremon 4y ago
  Any AI model needs to be designed with adversarial usage in mind Why? There's probably plenty of usage of ML where both the initial training set, its users and its outputs are internal to one company and hence well-controlled. Why should such a model be constructed with adversarial usage in mind, if such adversarial usage can be prevented by e.g. making it a fireable offense?
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> He's supposed to agree with you, or not express an opinion? Wow, not sure what to say if that's what you think are the only options. I didn't see the original response to the parent commenter, but this quote in the article, "It’s no longer possible to have some fun by casually misusing it. Happy?" doesn't bode well. I get that in the post-Twitter world it can be heart to differentiate between valid criticism and toxic bad-faith arguments, but lets not pretend that it's impossible to acknowledge criticism in a way that doesn't immediately try to dismiss it, even if you may not agree in the end.
freejazz 4y ago
- nickff 4y ago
  From the HN Guidelines: " Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Edit out swipes. "
arolihas 4y ago
No, you can disagree with someone without acting defensive. When a person is acting defensive, they're trying to protect or justify themselves. People who are insecure or guilty tend to act defensive. You can have a disagreement and defend your positions without taking things personally.

by nn3 4y ago

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

TBH I think even a basic "I considered your point, but X and Y factors seemed to mitigate it enough for my standards, defined by P and Q. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding anything" would do a lot. It's important to always show you've considered that you're wrong about something.

searine 4y ago

The correct response to a criticism you disagree with is "thanks".

trap_goes_hot 4y ago
You're right. That response is sufficient for people who provide it in good faith. There are bad faith actors who aren't happy unless you actually respond in detail and convince them otherwise. They're more than happy to raise a ruckus about how "XYZ ignored my feedback and criticism".
- searine 4y ago
  Thanks.

Barrin92 4y ago

I'm not sure what OPs particular point was, but Yan seemed to argue over and over again that testing Galactica with adversial inputs is why "we can't have nice things" which to me seems not just defensive but kind of comical. Any AI model needs to be designed with adversarial usage in mind. And I don't even think random people trying to abuse the thing for five minutes to get it to output false or vile info counts as a sophisticated attack. Clearly before they published that demo Facebook had again put zero thought into what bad actors can do with this technology and the appropriate response to people testing that out is certainly not blaming them.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tremon 4y ago
Any AI model needs to be designed with adversarial usage in mind Why? There's probably plenty of usage of ML where both the initial training set, its users and its outputs are internal to one company and hence well-controlled. Why should such a model be constructed with adversarial usage in mind, if such adversarial usage can be prevented by e.g. making it a fireable offense?

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> He's supposed to agree with you, or not express an opinion? Wow, not sure what to say if that's what you think are the only options. I didn't see the original response to the parent commenter, but this quote in the article, "It’s no longer possible to have some fun by casually misusing it. Happy?" doesn't bode well. I get that in the post-Twitter world it can be heart to differentiate between valid criticism and toxic bad-faith arguments, but lets not pretend that it's impossible to acknowledge criticism in a way that doesn't immediately try to dismiss it, even if you may not agree in the end.

freejazz 4y ago

nickff 4y ago
From the HN Guidelines: " Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Edit out swipes. "

arolihas 4y ago

No, you can disagree with someone without acting defensive. When a person is acting defensive, they're trying to protect or justify themselves. People who are insecure or guilty tend to act defensive. You can have a disagreement and defend your positions without taking things personally.