4 ms·
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.y
by rlt 4y ago
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> questioning the value of a chatbot
Original commenter was questioning the value of the entire field.
> hasn’t had a real job”
This is different than “haven't worked in a 'real' business”.
- version_five 4y agoIronic given yours and others emphasis on my choosing "chatbot" to summarise llms as a reason to dismiss my comment, along with the rest of the pedantry. The upstream post dismissed / insulted the person for questioning value, which was what I called out. If you really had wanted to get into the "HN rules" game, you could at least have cited "don't be snarky"
- rlt 4y agoYou weakened the argument by portraying it as more insulting against a narrower claim than it was. But yes, also snarky.
- donkeyd 4y ago> dismissed / insulted the person That wasn't even remotely my goal and I'm disappointed that my choice of words made it seem like it was. I purposefully added quotes to the word 'real' in my comment since any business is a real business and made it clear it was an assumption, not a fact. It's just that many tech workers often haven't worked outside of tech and therefore are blind to issues outside of the tech world, like manual data entry, because they assume that must all be automated. It's exactly the same the other way around, people in what I called 'real' businesses are blind to what tech can to to improve business processes because they have no clue about what's available and possible.
- version_five 4y agoFair enough, thanks for clarifying.
- xpe 4y agoThanks for putting in the effort to clarify. I get it. Translation: “Real” businesses sort of make their own gravity.