4 ms·
I resubmitted this because somebody flagged the original submission for unclear reasons and it had quite a lot of upvotes in a short time. Perhaps some people
by dankai 6mo ago
I resubmitted this because somebody flagged the original submission for unclear reasons and it had quite a lot of upvotes in a short time.
Perhaps some people are offended by this argument, but it's definitely worthy of a discussion instead of censorship.
- suddenlybananas 6mo agoWell, all of the comments on the old submissions were complaining about the essay being AI slop. I haven't read the essay so I couldn't say, but that's clearly the reason why.
- waffletower 6mo agoThat's clearly the "stated" reason why.
- DustinKlent 6mo agoI read the whole thing; it's definitely not AI slop. A few sentences taken out of an hour long read that are commonly used by AI doesn't mean the article was composed by AI. You'll find similar artifacts in any longer published work, including those published prior to AI.
- advael 6mo agoThe essay, if taken seriously, has a logical conclusion that I'm sure a decent number on this website find uncomfortable, but perhaps more importantly, which at least some people who might have disproportionate power to make such decisions prefer not be discussed too heavily. This is a microcosm of the larger phenomenon
- bspammer 6mo agoIt's because it's AI written with all the usual over-the-top grandeur and a ridiculous number of negative parallelisms. > No regression. No noise. Just compounding. > the transition is measured in years, not decades. > not by decree, but by ruthless compounding. I'm not interested in what an LLM thinks about the social implications of LLMs.
- MattGrommes 6mo agoThis isn't really on you but the problem I have with comments like this is that I think most people write poorly so I can't tell if those are LLM artifacts or LinkedIn-speak artifacts. I need better heuristics for these things.
- applfanboysbgon 6mo agoIt was flagged for being clearly botted, and I don't just mean LLM-generated (although it is also that). When I posted on and flagged the old submission, I noted that it had over two dozen upvotes in 15 minutes, despite the essay having a helpful "54 min read" indicator at the top. I truly do not believe the upvotes on these submissions are organic, and it really destroys my faith in HN that this was restored when the first one went down successfully. (If by some chance I am wrong and this monster of an LLM-generated essay really got dozens of people instantly upvoting it from the title alone, that fact would also not give me much faith in HN, I have to add.)
- snikeris 6mo agoYou don't have to read the whole thing to upvote it.
- applfanboysbgon 6mo agoDoes the first 1/5th or 1/4th of the article provide such a compelling case that one wants to stop reading it and return to upvote it? I certainly didn't think so.
- ankaz 6mo ago[dead]
- kjkjadksj 6mo agoI upvoted this without reading. For me sometimes the article is just the spark for a far more interesting set of comments that overshadow it. And it is really that I am voting for.
- applfanboysbgon 6mo agoThat is certainly an interesting perspective.
- 6mo ago
- waffletower 6mo agoWhile there are more excessive examples of moderation than Hacker News, "Rate Your Music" moderation is hilariously indulgent and arbitrary from my 2nd hand vantage, but moderation here and elsewhere tends to error on the side of removal and exercise of power. There is no BDSM thrill behind staying one's moderation ability. Many are attracted to moderation just as many police are attracted to their work to get the dopamine that is gifted to them by dominating others. But it might be reductive to think this moderation is tied to an individual's brain treat, and it might instead be useful to consider the host organization -- they may not feel enriched by posts that critique status quo capitalism.