4 ms·
It seems a bit mean-spirited as it picks specific commenters from threads to mock. Satire is one of those things where if you're not punching up it's just bully
by rablackburn 2y ago
It seems a bit mean-spirited as it picks specific commenters from threads to mock. Satire is one of those things where if you're not punching up it's just bullying.
- xanderlewis 2y ago> Meanwhile, commentators embellish this mundane dance of gradient descent with philosophical waxing that could put a caffeinated philosopher to shame. I’m pretty sure it’s mocking… me. Whatever. It’s probably right.
- exodust 2y ago> mean-spirited Of whom? The person who made Quacker News? I don't think "AI" can be mean-spirited. Surely it's analogous to standing in front of those Crazy Mirrors at sideshows that distort your appearance. The mirror takes your input and returns an unflattering output, that's its job. Quacker News is the crazy mirror.
- rablackburn 2y ago> Of whom? The person who made Quacker News? Yes. The “AI” didn’t do anything by itself, it was tasked to produce this. The author then made the decision to publish its output. The fun-house mirror analogy breaks down because those being depicted aren’t opting in to this experience. It’s like a fun-house mirror that’s scraping people’s social media profile photos and mocking them for their looks.
- exodust 2y agoOkay but if the content is automated, the author avoids making publishing decisions about specific output. I take your point about mirrors and consent. But if the mirrors are installed in a public place such as local park, passers-by are opted in. One question is, should we feel offended by algorithmic insults? Isn't that like being offended by a thesaurus? If it's an "AI insult dog" web app you're visiting, you'd expect insults.