11 ms·

> "humans would visit the website and the creator would get some reward" That expectation is a problem, has always been a problem, and Tim Berners Lee never me

> "humans would visit the website and the creator would get some reward" That expectation is a problem, has always been a problem, and Tim Berners Lee never mentioned anything about a reward structure when coming up with the WWW.

pferde 2mo ago
Your thinking too narrowly about the reward. Sometimes, it's just about the getting the knowledge out there that's motivating the creator, not anything tangible for themselves.
- esposm03 2mo ago
  > Your thinking Should be "You're thinking".
  - cryptoz 2mo ago
    > Should be "You're thinking". This should be "This should be 'You're thinking'." don't you think? Why bother correcting someone's grammar with a sentence fragment? You're just trading one mistake for another. I'm hoping someone finds a grammar error in my post, because continuing this would be hilarious.
    - danhite 2mo ago
      > This should be "This should be 'You're thinking'." don't you think? Reflexively, I think it should be more like ... javascript: `This should be "You're thinking".` ; // to preserve the original character use and to avoid '...'...' parse foos // however `"...".` also possibly deserves a [sic] to critique the original // i.e. ~grammar police say the period belongs within the quote marks, no? ... but then that's just me, in [my] quirks mode.
  - pferde 2mo ago
    Maybe I'm just making silly misspellings like this on purpose, to prevent someone from fingerprinting me based on my writing style. :-)
- boredhedgehog 2mo ago
  > it's just about the getting the knowledge out there that's motivating the creator In that case the creator should welcome AIs with open arms; a human reader will forget eventually, but the AI will preserve the knowledge forever.
  - matkoniecz 2mo ago
    "the AI will preserve the knowledge forever" no, only some mangled form of it
  - pferde 2mo ago
    AI will mutate the knowledge and eventually produce some mangled version of it, mixed in with ramblings from a random reddit post and half a paragraph from a copyrighted book that its fascist creators stole.
- Ajedi32 2mo ago
  If "getting the knowledge out there" is the motivation then it shouldn't matter whether the knowledge gets filtered through an AI or not.
  - jerjerjer 2mo ago
    And yet, inexplicably it does.
    - NateEag 2mo ago
      Sometimes, unpredictably, and uncontrollably, the LLM outputs bullshit that reads uncannily close to the hard-won, carefully-phrased text the human originally wrote. A lot of us hate that with a white-hot passion akin to the eye-melting intensity of an arc welder. If you don't understand that, then yes, I expect you're quite happy with LLMs, and indeed find inexplicable the reactions of those who are emphatically not happy with genAI.
      - jerjerjer 2mo ago
        "inexplicably" was obviously a sarcasm.
gspr 2mo ago
Did the operators of HN mention anything about a reward structure for posting comments here? I'm sure you can see how that's still attractive to some.
- bogzz 2mo ago
  I finally got the downvote powers yesterday, and I was irrationally pleased about that. It's not even about votes, I don't even need votes. Whenever I write something that I am happy with, I read and reread it imagining I am reading it as a third person. Sometimes it forces me to rework my arguments. I wouldn't write to convey my ideas through a chatbot. And that's what this post is about-- killing the internet and with it decimating any audience you might have accrued if you had something to say and you published it on a website.

pferde 2mo ago

Your thinking too narrowly about the reward. Sometimes, it's just about the getting the knowledge out there that's motivating the creator, not anything tangible for themselves.

esposm03 2mo ago
> Your thinking Should be "You're thinking".
- cryptoz 2mo ago
  > Should be "You're thinking". This should be "This should be 'You're thinking'." don't you think? Why bother correcting someone's grammar with a sentence fragment? You're just trading one mistake for another. I'm hoping someone finds a grammar error in my post, because continuing this would be hilarious.
  - danhite 2mo ago
    > This should be "This should be 'You're thinking'." don't you think? Reflexively, I think it should be more like ... javascript: `This should be "You're thinking".` ; // to preserve the original character use and to avoid '...'...' parse foos // however `"...".` also possibly deserves a [sic] to critique the original // i.e. ~grammar police say the period belongs within the quote marks, no? ... but then that's just me, in [my] quirks mode.
- pferde 2mo ago
  Maybe I'm just making silly misspellings like this on purpose, to prevent someone from fingerprinting me based on my writing style. :-)
boredhedgehog 2mo ago
> it's just about the getting the knowledge out there that's motivating the creator In that case the creator should welcome AIs with open arms; a human reader will forget eventually, but the AI will preserve the knowledge forever.
- matkoniecz 2mo ago
  "the AI will preserve the knowledge forever" no, only some mangled form of it
- pferde 2mo ago
  AI will mutate the knowledge and eventually produce some mangled version of it, mixed in with ramblings from a random reddit post and half a paragraph from a copyrighted book that its fascist creators stole.
Ajedi32 2mo ago
If "getting the knowledge out there" is the motivation then it shouldn't matter whether the knowledge gets filtered through an AI or not.
- jerjerjer 2mo ago
  And yet, inexplicably it does.
  - NateEag 2mo ago
    Sometimes, unpredictably, and uncontrollably, the LLM outputs bullshit that reads uncannily close to the hard-won, carefully-phrased text the human originally wrote. A lot of us hate that with a white-hot passion akin to the eye-melting intensity of an arc welder. If you don't understand that, then yes, I expect you're quite happy with LLMs, and indeed find inexplicable the reactions of those who are emphatically not happy with genAI.
    - jerjerjer 2mo ago
      "inexplicably" was obviously a sarcasm.

gspr 2mo ago

Did the operators of HN mention anything about a reward structure for posting comments here? I'm sure you can see how that's still attractive to some.

bogzz 2mo ago
I finally got the downvote powers yesterday, and I was irrationally pleased about that. It's not even about votes, I don't even need votes. Whenever I write something that I am happy with, I read and reread it imagining I am reading it as a third person. Sometimes it forces me to rework my arguments. I wouldn't write to convey my ideas through a chatbot. And that's what this post is about-- killing the internet and with it decimating any audience you might have accrued if you had something to say and you published it on a website.