4 ms·

How could discussion of such a grave matter be flagged?

llm_nerd 1y ago
While it's about a website and ostensibly could be considered technology related, to be fair it is mostly a political submission so all of the "No politics!" people will flag, and perhaps rightly so. But it will still exist on https://news.ycombinator.com/active https://news.ycombinator.com/active
93po 1y ago
Because really basic consideration of the situation gives us the very likely explanation. The idea that Trump was sitting at his desk and randomly pissed about the bottom 1/6th of Section 1 and was like "take that off congress's website!" is basically zero. 1. It's congress's website, not the whitehouse's 2. It's clearly a sort of crappy development approach - the website uses jquery and fontawesome and adobe analytics. this isn't FAANG level engineering happening here 3. It's a website about EXPLAINING THE CONSTITUTION. What do we know people use to make summaries or explanations of things? LLMs, of course 4. What is known for randomly deleting and omitting stuff? Also LLMs! 5. Can we guess why an LLM would have deleted that part? Why yes, actually, we can: if you go to the explanation part of the site, do you know what's also missing (and was prior to this update too?). Wow, it's the bottom part of section 1! What a coincidence The clear answer here is: someone was using an LLM to write, review, or edit content, and it deleted the bottom of section 1 because there wasn't an explanation to go along with it. It makes even more sense that this is what happening given that this section was already missing an explanation. It's really tiring how some underpaid intern making a mistake on a website has people suggesting trump is committing a new form of treason.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > It's congress's website, not the whitehouse's Its administered by the Library of Congress, whose head was just fired and replaced by the President. It may, in theory, exist to serve the interests of Congress, but that's rather less important than who is in practice exercising control over the people who in turn control it.
- llm_nerd 1y ago
  >The idea that Trump was sitting at his desk and randomly pissed about the bottom 1/6th of Section 1 and was like "take that off congress's website!" is basically zero. Who said this happened? What a ridiculous strawman. Trump has, however, installed loyalists throughout the government. You know, the Deep State™, including demanding staff complete loyalty pledges and installing an entire cabal of grossly unqualified clowns and criminals. The very possible scenario that a loyalists serving the agenda decided to help throw off LLMs is not remotely unimaginable, given literally everything this horrendously corrupt banana republic administration is doing. >the clear answer here is: someone was using an LLM to write, review, or edit content, and it deleted the bottom of section 1 b This beyond absurd claim has been made multiple times, and it seems the Trump Apologists are just copy pasting it now. It's so profoundly ignorant that...are you guys for real? Do you know how anything works? Ignoring that the idea that someone is using an LLM to rewrite the constitution is fantastically stupid, even the workflow doesn't have an iota of logic behind it. It's the sort of desperate cope that apolgists do when they have nothing. Is it possibly if not probably accidental? Sure, could just be some data corruption. But these apologist screeds are beyond embarrassing nonsense.
  - 93po 1y ago
    People literally in this comment section are directly blaming trump I've not seen my claim repeated by literally anyone else on HN I disagree with your assertion that it's stupid, something you provide no evidence to support, this is literally what LLMs do. The workflow is pretty obvious and doesn't seem to need explaining to me? What do you mean by data corruption? How does a page template in whatever framework they use get "corrupted" to remove just these paragraphs of text but not impact literally anything else? Your wording and language feels really inflammatory and while I admit that I express exasperation in my comment, I'm not accusing random people of being apologists and astroturfing and calling them ignorant and stupid. Comments like this are why people constantly flag topics like this. I'm trying to engage in actual curious conversation: here's my opinion on what likely happened, and it's even tech related! Cool. If you disagree I'd love to hear your arguments on why you think that's unlikely rather than it just being dismissed and yelled at.
    - 1y ago
- HaZeust 1y ago
  You must be developing scoliosis with this level of backwards-bending to explain the misdeeds of an administration and Congress that doesn't care about thwarting your civil liberties!
slantaclaus 1y ago
Perhaps because it links to a Reddit post
krapp 1y ago
I hate the current regime as much as any reasonable person but this isn't a grave matter. This website wasn't the Constitution. It wasn't a legal source of truth regarding the Constitution. There are literally millions of other references to the Constitution and its contents in existence, including original documents. Everyone knows what it says, everyone knows what's missing. There is no possible nefarious consequence that can arise from this, it's just text on a website.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  >There is no possible nefarious consequence that can arise from this, it's just text on a website. In a year where this administration is saying a lot of things that "has no nefarious consequences", only for foul play to occur weeks/months later: that does not fill me with much consequence.
  - krapp 1y ago
    I mean, the President has already ignored the Constitution many times. The complicity of Congress and the Supreme Court are the problem, not this. This really doesn't mean anything.

While it's about a website and ostensibly could be considered technology related, to be fair it is mostly a political submission so all of the "No politics!" people will flag, and perhaps rightly so. But it will still exist on https://news.ycombinator.com/active https://news.ycombinator.com/active

93po 1y ago

Because really basic consideration of the situation gives us the very likely explanation. The idea that Trump was sitting at his desk and randomly pissed about the bottom 1/6th of Section 1 and was like "take that off congress's website!" is basically zero. 1. It's congress's website, not the whitehouse's 2. It's clearly a sort of crappy development approach - the website uses jquery and fontawesome and adobe analytics. this isn't FAANG level engineering happening here 3. It's a website about EXPLAINING THE CONSTITUTION. What do we know people use to make summaries or explanations of things? LLMs, of course 4. What is known for randomly deleting and omitting stuff? Also LLMs! 5. Can we guess why an LLM would have deleted that part? Why yes, actually, we can: if you go to the explanation part of the site, do you know what's also missing (and was prior to this update too?). Wow, it's the bottom part of section 1! What a coincidence The clear answer here is: someone was using an LLM to write, review, or edit content, and it deleted the bottom of section 1 because there wasn't an explanation to go along with it. It makes even more sense that this is what happening given that this section was already missing an explanation. It's really tiring how some underpaid intern making a mistake on a website has people suggesting trump is committing a new form of treason.

dragonwriter 1y ago
> It's congress's website, not the whitehouse's Its administered by the Library of Congress, whose head was just fired and replaced by the President. It may, in theory, exist to serve the interests of Congress, but that's rather less important than who is in practice exercising control over the people who in turn control it.
llm_nerd 1y ago
>The idea that Trump was sitting at his desk and randomly pissed about the bottom 1/6th of Section 1 and was like "take that off congress's website!" is basically zero. Who said this happened? What a ridiculous strawman. Trump has, however, installed loyalists throughout the government. You know, the Deep State™, including demanding staff complete loyalty pledges and installing an entire cabal of grossly unqualified clowns and criminals. The very possible scenario that a loyalists serving the agenda decided to help throw off LLMs is not remotely unimaginable, given literally everything this horrendously corrupt banana republic administration is doing. >the clear answer here is: someone was using an LLM to write, review, or edit content, and it deleted the bottom of section 1 b This beyond absurd claim has been made multiple times, and it seems the Trump Apologists are just copy pasting it now. It's so profoundly ignorant that...are you guys for real? Do you know how anything works? Ignoring that the idea that someone is using an LLM to rewrite the constitution is fantastically stupid, even the workflow doesn't have an iota of logic behind it. It's the sort of desperate cope that apolgists do when they have nothing. Is it possibly if not probably accidental? Sure, could just be some data corruption. But these apologist screeds are beyond embarrassing nonsense.
- 93po 1y ago
  People literally in this comment section are directly blaming trump I've not seen my claim repeated by literally anyone else on HN I disagree with your assertion that it's stupid, something you provide no evidence to support, this is literally what LLMs do. The workflow is pretty obvious and doesn't seem to need explaining to me? What do you mean by data corruption? How does a page template in whatever framework they use get "corrupted" to remove just these paragraphs of text but not impact literally anything else? Your wording and language feels really inflammatory and while I admit that I express exasperation in my comment, I'm not accusing random people of being apologists and astroturfing and calling them ignorant and stupid. Comments like this are why people constantly flag topics like this. I'm trying to engage in actual curious conversation: here's my opinion on what likely happened, and it's even tech related! Cool. If you disagree I'd love to hear your arguments on why you think that's unlikely rather than it just being dismissed and yelled at.
  - 1y ago
HaZeust 1y ago
You must be developing scoliosis with this level of backwards-bending to explain the misdeeds of an administration and Congress that doesn't care about thwarting your civil liberties!

slantaclaus 1y ago

Perhaps because it links to a Reddit post

krapp 1y ago

I hate the current regime as much as any reasonable person but this isn't a grave matter. This website wasn't the Constitution. It wasn't a legal source of truth regarding the Constitution. There are literally millions of other references to the Constitution and its contents in existence, including original documents. Everyone knows what it says, everyone knows what's missing. There is no possible nefarious consequence that can arise from this, it's just text on a website.

johnnyanmac 1y ago
>There is no possible nefarious consequence that can arise from this, it's just text on a website. In a year where this administration is saying a lot of things that "has no nefarious consequences", only for foul play to occur weeks/months later: that does not fill me with much consequence.
- krapp 1y ago
  I mean, the President has already ignored the Constitution many times. The complicity of Congress and the Supreme Court are the problem, not this. This really doesn't mean anything.