3 ms·
>I guess my criterion for 'grandiose rhetoric' is the bigness of a claim divided by the amount of information provided to support it. When the numerator is big
by tguvot 3y ago
>I guess my criterion for 'grandiose rhetoric' is the bigness of a claim divided by the amount of information provided to support it. When the numerator is big and the denominator is small, that's what I mean by grandiose.
you just described a majority of discussions around AI/Chat GPT here. Or around twitter/facebook/etc. using this criteria they should be outright banned from here.
- labster 3y agoThere are an awful lot of shallow takes on geopolitics here and in general, because … how do I put this in a non-insulting way … it’s a complex topic that doesn’t lend itself to pithy internet comments by those without a deep knowledge. Nation states do weird things, like how the US policy towards Cuba (itself complex) is almost entire driven by the electoral college for presidential elections and domestic demographics, but security still matters. Our debates on Twitter, Facebook, crypto, and AI are pithy because we all know the topics well, and have mostly made up our minds about them. Often there’s not a lot to add not included in the article.
- tguvot 3y ago>Our debates on Twitter, Facebook, crypto, and AI are pithy because we all know the topics well, and have mostly made up our minds about them. Often there’s not a lot to add not included in the article. they are pithy yet shallow. full of "grandiose rhetoric". "made up our minds" doesn't equal "sufficiently knowledgeable"
- dang 3y agoYes, and a majority of internet discussions generally. Do I wish I could deflate that aspect of HN? Sure I do.