3 ms·
This is a super disingenuous take. He was very obviously making a specific point, not try express a perspective on the value of humanity.
by csallen 8mo ago
This is a super disingenuous take. He was very obviously making a specific point, not try express a perspective on the value of humanity.
- polotics 8mo agoThe meaning of a message is what has been understood.
- dang 8mo agoCan you please make your substantive points without being snarky or condescending? Your comment would be fine without that last bit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- csallen 8mo agoThe meaning of a message is what is intended + communicated, assuming those intentions were communicated clearly. Willfully interpreting otherwise (especially uncharitably so) is the very definition of being disingenuous, which is pretending to not know what was really meant.
- polotics 8mo agoI disagree: if a message is open to such disingenuous interpretations, then its meaning has not been formulated clearly enough. I use the: (1) say what you will communicate, (2) communicate, (3) say what you have communicated rule, also the six W's...
- csallen 8mo agoNo one communicates that way. It's not practical. Almost all expressions can be uncharitably interpreted by a listener who doesn't like you, and thus has a motive to quote your sentences and disingenuously pretend you're saying something much more dastardly than you clearly intended.
- jmfldn 8mo agoI understand he’s making a technical point about efficiency, but language isn't neutral and I think it betrays something deeper. It's such a glib and shallow point too that I think it should be called out since he has a track record of saying some incredibly shallow things about AI, people, politics, and everything really.