antegamisou

Least delusional HN user/bot.

Ragebait comment for sure, but not everyone lives in some bubble where $14/months is spare change and anyway the fact that even a philosophical wall of text on why paying for something so fundamental like not getting spammed with retarded unksippable ads on a 20 second video, (or even worse getting one in the middle of a concerto movement) would not convince, makes further engagement unworthy. It's pretty appalling to note that not a single comment so far brought up the affordability issue.

If everyone makes noise about how the other side hasn't quieted down yet so they won't the only outcome is it gets ever louder

Yes, we shouldn't be pointing out the low-value content and enshittification brought upon by this superior technology, or even question why isn't research focused on addressing challenges like disease and poverty eradication, cause we bring more attention to any potential negative aspects, which are obviously very minimal and exaggerated. We should just accept dogmata about having to reconcile with the idea that humans have eventually lost in some absurd creativity/imagination race against the superior AGI machines and it's perfectly reasonable having negative IQ CEOs laying off thousands because AI does their job "better" (costs cheaper) than them. I'm sure paying no attention and magically letting it die on its own is the solution. Just like it has historically happened with other subjects like phrenology, scientific racism, antisemitism etc.

What are you even doing here, enjoy another trite useless application offered to you as another breakthrough that I'm obviously responsible for having 1.5K upvotes cause I can't shut up.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45930151

Not everyone writes trivial frontend or sysadmins for a living.

Yeah you can count on my reticence, everything seem to be going back to normal.

Oh wait what is that?!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45917875

Another low volume slop news day! Maybe I'm more influential than I previously thought..

No it means you can still discern what is BS.

you say LLMs mislead people and can't reason

Why would you postulate these two to be mutually exclusive?

then fault them for being good at helping people solve puzzles or win trivia games

They only help them in the same sense that a calculator would 'help' win at a hypothetical mental math competition, that is the gist; robbing people of the creative and mentally stimulating processes that make the game(s) fun. But I've come to realize this is an unpopular opinion on this website where being fiercely competitive is the only remarkable personality trait, so I guess yeah it may be useful for this particular population.

As of 1763032813 the current GPT5.1 has amassed a significant amount of comments to be considered low volume. Sadly I only see my suspicions being confirmed but yeah I'll play along with the HN is the best corner of the Internet narrative.

[Someone from the moderation team care to explain the reasoning behind flagging this comment?]

Your judgement concerning the state of the website since the release of GPT3 is flawed. Just take a look at the amount of comments on non-AI topics like the current one. Not counting yours truly, it's a very low volume conversation for a website for the discussion of stories that are intellectually interesting.

[Someone from the moderation team care to explain the reasoning behind flagging this comment?]

Characterizing as grossly inappropriate the statement of the reality of the monopoly on research funding on useless -as of now- AI and not even addressing the initial point is very telling of your dedication to VC brainwashing.

The whole frontpage has been infested with LLM BS for a very long time with absurd claims about it being of landing-on-the-moon levels of breakthrough yet here you are claiming the ones pointing out this fact are the problem.

And what's the end result? All one can see is just bigger representation of those who confidently subscribe to false information and become arrogant when their validity is questioned, as the LLM writing style has convinced them it's some sort of authority. Even people on this website are so misinformed to believe that ChatGPT has developed its own reasoning, despite it being at the core an advanced learning algorithm trained on a enormous amount of human generated data.

And let's not speak about those so deep into sloth that put it into use to deteriorate, and not augment as they claim to do, humane creative recreational activities.

https://archive.ph/fg7HE

I don't think you'll find many here believing anything outside tech is worth investing into, it's schizophrenic isn't it.

Honestly this (the fact it is being massively upvoted) looks a lot more like paid promotion. Not the first time and not the only example of submission btw.

Risk of Physical Harm

Yet ChatGPT is not responsible for having led to suicides.

If one were to only go by the number of comments this thread has ended up amassing, you'd reckon they would consist of endless wandering mental gymnastics about semantics, iamverysmart suppositions that the statement in the title is just a coping mechanism of those not intellectually gifted and certainly some thinly veiled scientific racism.

IMO, "unhappy smart" people are more likely to be described as those belonging to privileged social classes and backgrounds that were able to afford premium tutoring and education, so they ended up at places that provide opportunities and connections to the most powerful of the economic elite. The latter's influence on societal perceptions have of course helped the aforementioned category become a role model for those that do not possess the same privileges, on the deceitful pretense that this all is a result of superior raw mental capacity.

The unhappy part could be multifaceted; apart from being able to essentially buy elite institutional credentials, they're being indoctrinated at an early age about the importance of maintaining the status quo and being penalized if they deviate to any degree. Hence they may be suffering from some sort of transgenerational trauma that has shaped them to tie their worth to a narrow set of things, most usually occupational prestige and amount of wealth. When their environment consists of people of similar backgrounds but varying levels of social achievement, it's expected that they'd feel inferiority if they come across someone more accomplished (whose "accomplishment" almost always ends up meaning choosing the even-more-right parents), even if they already belong to the top ladder on the social hierarchy.

What makes the linked study not cherrypicked?

Dr Bloom spoke about how your overall mood during college is a good predictor for how happy you'll be as a person throughout your life. He talked about the optimum time to get married is 26. He elucidated the idea of your prefrontal cortex solidifying around 25, making personality changes MUCH more difficult.

Some of this sounds more like ideology and less science, especially when deterministic tendencies are getting mixed up when talking about psychology.

Everything I've learned from psychology (and by this I mean watching psychology lectures from Yale and Stanford

Also interesting that sensationalized statements always end up coming from places like that, exclusively pertaining to the rotten individualist lifestyle in the United States.

Yeah I also feel introducing some social class - income level variable would help clear things up.

I would rather call "annoying self-centered people who are often very concerned about their public image (i.e. narcists)".

You're essentially describing almost the entire online dating userbase here though.

How are people who are marketing themselves as the best chance for sexual gratification through display of their usually either materialistic or pretentiously modest lifestyle, providing useless tmi list requirements from the other party not self-centered?

They have literalized the concept of dating market, they have no existential inhibition of identifying as a product to be desired to be consumed as much as possible and treating others the exact same way.

Of course we have to thank a handful of evopsych "researchers" for that who are gaining traction from mass consumption podcasts by promoting their absurd, academically dubious fringe "findings" about supposedly deterministic human behaviors whose effectiveness is irrefutable for sexual reproduction success (remember, according to them homo sapiens have no deeper intellect and are moving meat that solely care about maximizing their offspring # and will do whatever it takes to succeed, so if you don't fit this description you're disordered and destined to extinction). Ideas that end up being diluted and appropriated by groups to demoralize those psychologically vulnerable.

I think there are certain basic psychological facts that are anti-standard-economics that nerds (and therefore tech companies) almost always tend to be completely blind to. This is one of them.

I believe it's the opposite, they're exactly aware of this and have taken advantage of it to maximize engagement and profit, of course with the accompanying insanity, emotional burnout and further division/culture wars fuelling.

Yes, it's entirely possible to disagree with the misinterpretation of an otherwise as-objectively-as-possible true sentence.

It seems like you're holding onto your initial position, applying the factually true statement:

    no ethical (as in a way of not contributing to others' exploitation) consumption is currently possible

Instead of talking about the way it's currently shaped to be ran by those who are profit-driven, violently steal resources and contribute to exhaustion of all peoples around the world, you're simplistically reducing it to a matter of entire groups of people, ignoring their standing in the social strata, having to either choose primitivism or accept they're just as bad as their rulers. Even if you've disclaimed that you're not concealing any motives and the responsibility is unequally distributed, your adherence on shifting away from those in charge of the means of production, which is how you've chosen to initiate this very exchange, enables an interpretation of you implicitly defending them, and I believe that's also what anyone with an ounce of critical thinking ability would make of. I would be less critical if you at least suggested organization against the existing way the global socioeconomical system as an alternative, but the appeal to the adherence to an archaic lifestyle suggests this is not something you'd probably approve of. A positive surprise would be taking this for granted and you just condemning those willing to comply all along I suppose?

And throughout the entire history, it has been shown that these are the exact same accusations that have insidiously been made by whoever is directly behind exploitative administrations. They put the blame on those who are always barred from having any say/questioning the way their labor is being used, divide them, deject their protests and prevent overthrowing.

You claim you "condemn all offensive war industries no matter the country of origin," and that's fine, but in any practical sense it's meaningless moral posturing. Unless you run off into the woods to live off the grid, you're still a part of the problem, it's unavoidable.

This whole narrative here really boils down to the Oh you like music? name every song meme.

P.S. I'd advise refraining from appealing to imaginary emotional reactions on behalf of the other party. It usually demonstrates inability to defend a particular view and deflects from meaningful dialogue.

This is quite a stretch of mental gymnastics from the initial point, drawing a blatantly false equivalency between the consumer and the producer as an at attempt to derail and minimize the latter's direct contribution to the forced unethical consumption. And it's an especially absurd argument since it's impossible to ethically consume or even survive with such owners of the means of production.

And this whole falsely applied narrative is unironically a very frequent laundering tactic of their proponents.

And btw I don't even think most are really willing to accept the accusations of the American companies, as they've been told for centuries that these are the good guys.

Am I missing something here?

The fact that all of the above is being presented as an exclusively Russian strategy. When almost all companies mentioned on this website are proudly and directly tied to non-Russian war industries. The tendency to omit pointing out non-Russian examples almost always indicates endorsement of their actions.

And let me beat you to this that I condemn all offensive war industries no matter the country of origin. Unlike those who believe it is ok to side with one and not the other even if they do the exact same.

Thank God all other non-Russian companies not only condemn various atrocities around the globe but even support the affected countries being liberated by developing the high-tech armies of the good guys, right?!

Europoors seething they can't afford ad-ridden fridges. /s

Any billionaire-regulated (N"P"R my ass) major news media company accusing other billionaire-owned major news media companies of bias is being hypocritical.

I don't know if you deliberately skipped the 90% of other inventions that had nothing to do with -mind you- defense from American imperialism or you're being dense on purpose. Probably both?

Anyway just glancing the respective page for US "innovations" one can easily tell which country had the most obsessive offensive war industry.

The grandparent comment shouldn't be wondering about anything now, should they....

This has to be the most American thing I've ever read: the cognitive dissonance of the disconnect between income inequality and political systems.