7 ms·

> Define human. This comment is such a shallow dismissal of a good post that brings up a genuine and legally complex question that many readers of HN care abou

by distcs 4y ago

> Define human. This comment is such a shallow dismissal of a good post that brings up a genuine and legally complex question that many readers of HN care about. Are you trying to be clever? Because this comment is anything but clever. It is not hard to define humans. The humans are biologically animals and have a certain set of properties that can be easily searched online. For instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human And no you cannot just weasel your way into somehow fooling us or a jury that machines and AI algorithms that exhibit similar properties are also human! I frankly don't understand the point of your comment.

dotancohen 4y ago
Perhaps humans are well-defined, but are the OP's requirements so well defined? If I train a chimpanzee to complete `foo = "` with `bar"`, is that in the spirit of the OP's wishes?
- distcs 4y ago
  > Perhaps humans are well-defined, but are the OP's requirements so well defined? And that would be a good and insightful question and make an interesting discussion. Posting a two word comment like "Define human." without substantiating it as if the two words are supposed to communicate something very clever is not! It is lazy and presumptuous.
  - bigB 4y ago
    Much like your response, but yet you did it anyhow
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      >> It is lazy and presumptuous. > Much like your response, but yet you did it anyhow Their initial response was not lazy. And how do you not be presumptuous in response to such a vague two word comment? A Rorschach test is not a good way to communicate.
      - bigB 4y ago
        >>Their initial response was not lazy. Yes it was, it didn't consider what could have been meant and instead of asking they presumed the worse and attacked. Yes the initial comment was short, but also a very valid question even if it was lazy as well. If one wants to critisise, it should not be done by doing the same as what the criticism is about...in my opinion of course
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        They didn't presume the worst. They called it a bad comment because it's a fast dismissal that also basically forces you to presume to get any meaning from it. The two words reference a handful of arguments, specify none, and don't make a case for anything. Not wanting to play "guess the deeper argument" is not laziness. And they wrote a perfectly reasonable length response to get across their entire point, which is also not lazy.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    Agreed.
aaron695 4y ago
[dead]
throwmeup123 4y ago
[dead]
bigB 4y ago
Well while I see your eagerness to defend the definition of human, it may for futures sake be a very valid question. It may not be too far in the future here we will see brain enhancements, or maybe even ocular implants which a "human" will read with but extra processing takes place elsewhere by machines. What if its a blind human, using machine assisted reading, what if humans are reading and inputing data into the machine ? All these questions and more should be asked now....so we can plan for the future. Right now is a great example, we are beginning to see the explosion of AI creation, yet nothing to govern it. Dont be so quick to smack down questions until you consider the broader implications is all I am saying
- distcs 4y ago
  > I see your eagerness to defend the definition of human I am not eager to defend the definition of human. Your comment has interesting points that could start an interesting discussion in its own thread. I see you do have a separate comment thread about it. So that's all good and fair. But in this comment thread, you are completely missing my point! The OP has a very specific question that many HN readers care about. The question is complex and there aren't any easy answers for the question. My point is that the OP does not deserve shallow dismissals. Heck, no post deserves shallow dismissals. If a post is so bad that it should not be on HN, flag it and move on! So my point is not to defend any definition or any particular school of thought or any particular view of AI. My point is to defend the OP from shallow dismissals. I am seeing these shallow dismissals more and more often these days and it makes reading HN comments a chore sometimes.
  - iinnPP 4y ago
    Your first paragraph: This comment is such a shallow dismissal of a good post that brings up a genuine and legally complex question that many readers of HN care about. My first thought when looking at this thread was: I wonder if someone will try to claim their robot is a man and that it has been created. What might that imply?
    - Dylan16807 4y ago

by distcs 4y ago

dotancohen 4y ago

Perhaps humans are well-defined, but are the OP's requirements so well defined? If I train a chimpanzee to complete `foo = "` with `bar"`, is that in the spirit of the OP's wishes?

distcs 4y ago
> Perhaps humans are well-defined, but are the OP's requirements so well defined? And that would be a good and insightful question and make an interesting discussion. Posting a two word comment like "Define human." without substantiating it as if the two words are supposed to communicate something very clever is not! It is lazy and presumptuous.
- bigB 4y ago
  Much like your response, but yet you did it anyhow
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    >> It is lazy and presumptuous. > Much like your response, but yet you did it anyhow Their initial response was not lazy. And how do you not be presumptuous in response to such a vague two word comment? A Rorschach test is not a good way to communicate.
    - bigB 4y ago
      >>Their initial response was not lazy. Yes it was, it didn't consider what could have been meant and instead of asking they presumed the worse and attacked. Yes the initial comment was short, but also a very valid question even if it was lazy as well. If one wants to critisise, it should not be done by doing the same as what the criticism is about...in my opinion of course
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        They didn't presume the worst. They called it a bad comment because it's a fast dismissal that also basically forces you to presume to get any meaning from it. The two words reference a handful of arguments, specify none, and don't make a case for anything. Not wanting to play "guess the deeper argument" is not laziness. And they wrote a perfectly reasonable length response to get across their entire point, which is also not lazy.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- dotancohen 4y ago
  Agreed.

aaron695 4y ago

[dead]

throwmeup123 4y ago

[dead]

bigB 4y ago

Well while I see your eagerness to defend the definition of human, it may for futures sake be a very valid question. It may not be too far in the future here we will see brain enhancements, or maybe even ocular implants which a "human" will read with but extra processing takes place elsewhere by machines. What if its a blind human, using machine assisted reading, what if humans are reading and inputing data into the machine ? All these questions and more should be asked now....so we can plan for the future. Right now is a great example, we are beginning to see the explosion of AI creation, yet nothing to govern it. Dont be so quick to smack down questions until you consider the broader implications is all I am saying

distcs 4y ago
> I see your eagerness to defend the definition of human I am not eager to defend the definition of human. Your comment has interesting points that could start an interesting discussion in its own thread. I see you do have a separate comment thread about it. So that's all good and fair. But in this comment thread, you are completely missing my point! The OP has a very specific question that many HN readers care about. The question is complex and there aren't any easy answers for the question. My point is that the OP does not deserve shallow dismissals. Heck, no post deserves shallow dismissals. If a post is so bad that it should not be on HN, flag it and move on! So my point is not to defend any definition or any particular school of thought or any particular view of AI. My point is to defend the OP from shallow dismissals. I am seeing these shallow dismissals more and more often these days and it makes reading HN comments a chore sometimes.
- iinnPP 4y ago
  Your first paragraph: This comment is such a shallow dismissal of a good post that brings up a genuine and legally complex question that many readers of HN care about. My first thought when looking at this thread was: I wonder if someone will try to claim their robot is a man and that it has been created. What might that imply?
  - Dylan16807 4y ago