3 ms·
That's more or less correct. My post was targeted to the investor segment of HN readership about labor automation, displacement, and re-valuation. The coder/tec
by digitailor 4y ago
That's more or less correct. My post was targeted to the investor segment of HN readership about labor automation, displacement, and re-valuation. The coder/techaesthete segment has focused exclusively on 1/7 sentences of my comment, as noted here, 20 min before your post, that quoted the 1/7 literally:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34681721 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34681721
Which is pretty cool, actually
- Dylan16807 4y agoIf you make a very strong point in your first sentence, of course people will focus on that. And while the rest of your post can stand alone, you made that sentence part of the foundation of your argument. "going to show" "in other words" "so" So arguing against that point is relevant to notably more than 1/7 of your post.
- digitailor 4y agoYup, you’re dead on, that’s how "engagement" tends to work, but hook is not also line and sinker, no? So advanced speech generation models are now having to account for engagement— contextually— as well. It’s all getting much more refined, somewhat rapidly, but not necessarily truly usefully Edit: At the time of this comment, that 1/7 sentences had generated almost all of the 84 resulting comments. I had been hoping for more like 20% comments on the other parts, or more people to latch on to the behavioral aspect of trained model content generation, but whatevs