HelloMcFly

What was gained? I don't really see anything... I don't see how you changed anything...

From an outcome-orientation, no, nothing has changed. But then why write a letter to my representatives or leave public comments on legislation? That seems to do nothing. Why volunteer to remove amur honeysuckle from an American forest? It will just come back in a few years.

You are being outcome-oriented, I'm being value-oriented. I think the effort is worth it for the act alone. I believe I retained some dignity by still caring about the distinction between human-created content and machine created content, and for caring enough to still be able to tell the difference. To you it's worth nothing, fine, to me it's worth something. It's not like I'm blanketing comment sections across this or any other site.

Unless you know for certain that there was not a real human behind it don't point fingers

I am telling you, definitively, this article is "penned" primarily if not exclusively by an LLM. You want to hang on to possibility that isn't true? That is your decisions to make!

I find it interesting that your reaction to my observation seems to make the observation more of a pejorative than my own comments have. You act like I'm accusing someone of a deplorable or shameful act. I don't feel that strongly, but I am nevertheless sad to see the loss of humanity in our writing.

I'll admit it cannot be proven to the standard of criminal conviction, but I don't think it's beyond a person's or technology's ability to identify enough "tells" to make a solid conclusion. I can share the things that stick out to me if desired, not that it ultimately constitutes any "proof".

Still there is nothing to be gained from distrusting and calling out authors

Is there nothing? Nothing at all to be gained by resisting the loss of human-created written thought? It may be a futile effort, the tide may be too great, but I guess I'm not just quite so ready to accept the robotic creation of all written content without even a periodic passing comment. It's good for the soul, but I admit I am probably commenting in a community less likely to appreciate or share such a sentiment.

There is no "maybe", it is at least largely AI-generated though I'm sure there's a human involved in building the perspective. Run it through any checker you can find, the outcome is without doubt.

I don't think I've made a similar comment elsewhere on Hacker News, reddit, etc., (nor do I plan to make a habit of it) but this one stuck out to me. I know this because I did read it just as I've read previous posts such as these on West Point through the years. This just isn't how things used to be written. It's a little more ambiguous out in the wild on any given site/blog/etc.

The only things we increase are mistrust and frustration

Mistrust of what? The human voice behind this thought? Yes, I think that mistrust is valid and earned. Nevertheless, I admit the topic seems pertinent and the argument has merit.

This piece seems logical and correct. It also seems entirely AI-generated, but I suppose we've moved into a world where that's just the way content is now.

But for the love of reading, skip anything new and fashionable until enough decades go by for the influnce of fashion to fade

You could stick to the old stuff, but I think it's also enjoyable to read things written by people that exist in the context I exist in. I don't know what "fashionable" means to you - likely best seller lists of awards? - but I don't find it all that difficult or burdensome (in fact, I find it fun!) to look for newer books dealing with topics and themes I'm interested in. Sure, not all of them are great, but a few are, and many are good. It's a little less fun TO ME to ONLY read consensus lists arounds "top books of the 70s" or whatever.

"The rat is always right." - B.F. Skinner.

When the rat presses a lever, don't blame the rat. This is super reductionist of course, but I always keep it in mind.

In my view: the lack of engagement with the historical record. This topic - and the meaning and expected outcomes of the wording for the amendment - were discussed and debated as part of the open record. Senator Cowan thought the phrasing created a loophole for birthright citizenship, and the amendment creators explicitly, overtly, repeatedly agreed with his interpretation of the phrasing and defended it as deliberate policy.

As I posted elsewhere, you can read some of this for yourself: https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjusti... (CTRL+F "If my friend from Pennsylvania" for a quite pertinent line).

But that was not the original intention of the law which I already stated

You've stated it, but not evidenced it. This is certainly the right-wing talking point, but never strongly sourced. The meaning of this phrase was viciously debated. Would it surprise you to know that many in Congress hated it for similar reasons as nationalists today?

Let me say this again: the meaning of this phrase was openly and viciously debated in the public record! Senator Cowan thought the phrasing created a loophole for birthright citizenship, and the amendment creators explicitly, overtly, repeatedly agreed with his interpretation of the phrasing and defended it as deliberate policy.

Feel free to read some of this: https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjusti... (CTRL+F "If my friend from Pennsylvania" for a quite pertinent line).

The other commenter is spot-on. A blu-ray player is a computer decoding a compressed file on the fly as it sends the image to the TV, rather than just a passive pipe for digital bits.

Accordingly, different brands use different video processing hardware and software to rebuild that compressed data. This absolutely results in color accuracy variation, shadow detail, and overall picture differences.

which is achievable on pretty much any broadband connection

It's only achievable in a real sense if there are video providers out there offering the content at that bitrate. The absolute best you can hope for in optimal conditions is from Apple TV+ at between 30-40 Mbps which is equivalent to what you get with a non-4k blu-ray.

I believe you.

I also do not, and have never, experienced this. I've been using Pixel phones since the 3a in 2019/2020.

I've used Firefox across devices, across the years. This just isn't my experience, at all, remotely. And I have had to use Chrome (now it is Edge) for many work functions, so I do have the A/B comparisons. I'm not doubting your experience, fine, but I also know I'm not "pretending" anything in my own experience.

I would MAYBE watch a video on this topic if it were 4-6 minutes. 44 minutes? Is that really a better use of your time?

Which leaves us with plenty of time to take a stroll in our drought-stricken nearby park. What fun we'll have reading the placards of all of the species that used to exist in the nearby creek.

Or if we're above wet bulb climate conditions again, we just watch the newest algorithm invent stories for us built on the uncredited labor of real artists.

Most uses of the word "Luddite" - and I'd venture to guess this one included - don't refer to the original aims of Luddites but the modern connotation of maximally pejorative "anti-technologists" in the broadest sense.

The energy required to transport water from the coast to our major agricultural areas would be astronomical, and the resulting brine waste would create its own environmental crisis. If we get to a point where we're forced to bypass natural water cycles entirely, our native ecologies will have already collapsed. At that point, we'll be trying to engineer our way out of a total ecological apocalypse as masses starve in bread lines.

Every restriction on freedom is for the benefit of society.

A different way to say it: restrictions on freedoms are necessary to enable other freedoms. There is no such thing as total freedom when one lives in a society because one for of freedom for person A will impugn on a different freedom for person B.

I don't want to get into a big debate on libertarianism, but the The "freedoms" being celebrated here are largely freedoms from accountability: the freedom to build without inspections that protect neighbors from fire hazards or ensure you're building on land you own; the freedom from alimony that ensures a financially dependent spouse who made shared life decisions isn't left destitute because those decisions reduced their personal earning potential; the freedom to abuse and neglect your children to whatever extreme degree you wish.

The weak state and cash economy being romanticized also tend to mean no enforced worker safety, no recourse when a business defrauds you, and no accessible courts for the poor - all freedoms that disproportionately belong to whoever is strongest or most corrupt. Regulations are often irritating precisely because they encode hard-won protections for people who aren't you.

I'll wear the dunce cap: how are you so certain this is co-marketing? I'm not saying you are wrong, but it doesn't seem obviously like marketing copy to me (which is of course what they'd want but that's nevertheless not in any way evidence one way or the other).

Well, it is change, but that doesn't mean it's not destruction. While the world has experienced mass die-offs before, the hallmark of the planet's current situation is distinguished by its unprecedented speed and the fact that it is being driven by a single species' behavior rather than geological cycles or cosmic externalities.

To repeat myself in another comment: I have tried to really focus on and take comfort in the idea "deep time", and the sincere belief that for as much destruction as we create, there will be more and different beauty in the far, far future. Yet where the Louvre to burn, how much comfort would it be to me that over the next 1000 years other artists will create yet more great works? In the same way, how long will it take the earth to return to such complexity and diversity of life? Many, many millenia.

Certainty that your involvement is inconsequential requires too much intellectual hubris, it precludes the possibility that you may be wrong in your forecasts so you can let yourself off the hook for any effort. I get it, I do, but I think that's mind poison. Surprises to happen, the world is chaotic, yesterday's longshot becomes tomorrow's surprise.

And, if nothing else, many of the efforts you can contribute to can have a clear and demonstrable impact at a more local level, or for a more limited time, even if it doesn't solve or mitigate the larger issue in the long run. Is it a waste of time for me to get involved in river clean-ups, or to work with a crew to re-wild an abandoned golf course, or remove asur honeysuckle from nearby native forests? Maybe you'd say "yes" because we'll have to keep doing it again, but that's the work with most things that matter.

I think it is ok to not engage.

I understand what you're saying. I appreciate the thought behind it. But in the end, I do not agree. I cannot be certain where my actions will and won't ultimately help accrue to impact; the pebble knows not the impact that its ripples will have. If you care about something, I think you should be involved.

unless you take for granted that humans are inherently 'special' which leads to speciesism

It is true humans are part of nature, but we are unique in our capacity for causal understanding and foresight. We are the only species that can understand the long-term consequences of our actions and actively choose to change course. If our ability to exploit is natural, our ability to act with foresight and restraint is equally natural. Framing the present-day destruction as a natural consequence of some "evolutionary law" to me is an "appeal to nature" fallacy that can be used to absolve both individual and collective responsibility.

Yes, this is perhaps a way (it seems far too presumptive to say "the way") planets with intelligent species evolve. We are perhaps entering the Great Filter, or one of them.

Also, to be fair, _most_ of life on earth will survive this

Literally true, but I'd argue a semantic deflection. It doesn't engage with the core idea of the destruction of complex ecosystems that we are witnessing and commenting on.

That said and to the point: I have tried to really focus on and take comfort in the idea "deep time", and the sincere belief that for as much destruction as we create, there will be more and different beauty in the far, far future. Yet where the Louvre to burn, how much comfort would it be to me that over the next 1000 years other artists will create yet more great works?

I agree. Like many here, my job is now in the service of an AI-first business and people are incentivized to make AI as central and routine a part of our operations as possible. AI usage is not included in corporate commitments to social responsibility or environmental stewardship are not.

All that said: you might enjoy the book Robot & Monk by Becky Chambers, if you're one to read fiction. It kind of depicts what you're describing as your fantasy.

Ah, then I would like to apologize.

I interpreted your comment as a snarky response to me, not actually imploring others to trust those dedicated their lives to understanding the issue. Perhaps I'm too primed on this subject to assume bad-faith engagement because that's so often what I get. That's more about me than you.

Another bad-faith contribution, a snarky comment befitting of a default subreddit. Doesn't even logically build from what I posted, nowhere have I committed the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, but you have made the leap.

And for what? Why? Ideological reasons? A sincerely held belief that the extinction probability of polar bears is dramatically overstated based on some insight that doesn't seem to broadly available?

---

EDIT: this was a poor response to a misunderstood comment

This comment makes me so, so angry. Like, shouting angry. It's a person who hasn't engaged with a topic AT ALL except to find one headline that downplays the concerns of others. It's the quintessential bad faith comment, created of willful malice or ignorance (and I don't mean that be aggressive, but descriptive).

Which is more true: are you trying to comfort yourself with this comment, or do you find those who work in the name on conservation so loathsome that you'll grasp onto anything to dismissively roll your eyes at them?

I want to ignore these articles as it is so painful to watch the beautiful clockwork of the natural world unravel. I hate facing the suffering, diminishment, and extinction of so much in the name of profiteering and ever-increasing growth.

But this is the world now, there will only be more stories like this, and so I'm not turning away from it any further. The world becomes less beautiful, less rich, less full every year.

I do volunteer, donate, and advocate and I won't use my extreme pessimism as an excuse not to engage. But in private, I mourn what is coming with little hope for substantial reduction in harm. If anything, those with power seem upset that we're not doing more to fasttrack catastrophe - if it's going to happen, may as well be the one to profit from it as much as possible before you're dead, the thinking seems to go.

There's more research for you to explore if you're interested, but you sound more closed than curious if I'm honest. Maybe looking more into it will change your mind, maybe not!

Much of it is, sure, but certainly not all of it! On your comparison to Sweden, be cautious! Finns generally have a higher risk and incidence of cardiovascular disease compared to native Swedes - in fact, they have some of the highest risk in the world!

Research from Earric Lee and/or Jari Laukkanen from this past decade will have clinical trials with controlled groups rather than just long-term population tracking. There are within-Finland studies comparing high-risk Finns who use the sauna 4 to 7 times a week against high-risk Finns who use it only once a week, showing a clear effect (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25705824/). Here is a non-randomized experiment showing a dose-response (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29048215/).

Those are just indications of information available. I would also argue that while of course randomized experiments are ideal, it is a mistake to dismiss all other forms of evidence so readily, especially with such preponderance of it.