HN user
Did you read the subthread you are commenting on? The GP of your post, jatora, was literally arguing against that point. Right there. Is jatora "nobody"? Or are you illiterate (on top of belligerently having no taste)?
It also feels a bit like Sam Kriss, if you know him.
Some of his writing: https://samkriss.substack.com/p/five-prophets
His biography is quite interesting: https://halupedia.com/sam-kriss
Cool!
I'm curious about the design. Maybe you have a "how I did it" post coming soon, or something. One question: Did you find away to get some convergence, where a newly generated page will tend to cite pages (or stubs, at least) that already exist in the universe? Seems hard to do it with generated text, but not impossible.
Love it! It feels very Borges!
Feature request: also be able to click on the Talk page to see the controversies. I don't always want to trust the article itself as the final word.
Edit: Oh look, there's an article about the YC! https://halupedia.com/y-combinator
Correct. I was making a joke, and hoped it would be clear.
snidely-whiplash-esque
I do hope this whole thing ends with someone saying "curses, foiled again!"
anymore?
This is how discovery has always worked.
submitted
Doesn't necessarily mean they volunteered it. Either submission or the unsealing could have been in response to a subpoena or court ruling.
Maybe the solution is to write at the top of your journal that you are cc'ing your lawyer on it. (Not legal advice!)
There's a boundary between knowing vs. forgetting that it's a metaphor. When you use convenient language like in your examples, you tend to remain aware of the difference, or at least you can recall it when asked. When some people talk about AI, they've lost track completely.
I don't love the recommendations in TFA. The author is trying to artificially restrain and roll back human language, which has already evolved to treat a chatbot as a conversational partner. But I do think there's usefulness in using these more pedantic forms once in a while, to remind yourself that it's just a computer program.
It's educating you about economics, exactly as advertised, what's the problem?
I'm reacting to the supernatural claim -- this lottery in an antechamber before birth. The commenter had likely absorbed that claim from the culture, without ever realizing it could be questioned. (That's how all religions work, not just this one.) My blasphemy provoked outrage and confusion, which is understandable, because we've retrofitted our whole society around this particular supernatural story, and to hear it challenged will naturally cause fear and cognitive dissonance.
Clear enough?
Yeah, but we won't really know for sure until he sells some of the genesis block.
This is slander! I am not an ex-art student! :)
I would agree that "it's not my bag" is a fine thing to say about some art gallery piece that fails to inspire you, but when a statue is foisted upon the public square, with possible state cooperation, we're allowed to criticize it. He has inserted it into the conversation.
Moreover, the main complaint about this statue isn't coming from some expert artiste perspective, saying that it's somehow unsophisticated as art. The complaint here is that it's making a truly banal political statement. The entire piece consists of making that statement, with little else to recommend it. (Indeed, most political art is hack, unless it's saying something really original or really well, and it's even worse when it tries to be cute about it.)
So here, the complaints are coming from everyday onlookers who might not be qualified artistically, but who are able to say which sorts of statements are tiresome and overplayed in the culture we all live in. We are all qualified to ask ourselves whether this predictable statement advances or degrades the conversation.
Anyhow, FWIW, I just looked up Simon Berger's portraits based on your comment, and I really like them. Thanks.
Thanks for drawing the distinction. For the record, I do not think Banksy is a hack (noun), and he has done good stuff in the past. I'm merely saying that this piece under discussion is hack (adjective).
It's only "for no good reason" if you think art doesn't matter.
Sure he can. Both of them have flags, and all flags are bad. They blow in your face and make you dumb. Why can't world be less dumb? So many dumb flag people. I do art.
the fact that the flag is unadorned (which/whose flag is it?), and the man is unknown, makes me think this statue could be the ultimate Rorschach test
This is part of what's obvious. The whole thing, including this oooh aahh Rorschach part, is obvious. It's thoughts that we all had in high school, and it is hack.
Yeah, I think you're right. It's like when you ask it, "which weighs more, 10 pounds of feathers or 100 pounds of rocks", and it's like, "obviously they both weigh the same, I've heard this one".
There are totally some political correctness effects in LLMs. Like, the last part about "along with a small lecture about gender biases" totally tracks. But the riddle switcheroo itself isn't showing much.
What he had in mind. I have no clue what the suggestion was.
Claude Opus 4.6 insisted on Elizabeth Sandifer
Off-topic, but this guess was hilarious. Like, all the other wrong guesses were people like Yglesias who are maybe half a degree removed from Piper herself, in her same camp, and then one model guesses Sandifer who hates all their guts.
Absolutely not!
How would it read?
Sounds like you don't really care for this idea, so maybe just have Claude write it for you.
Holy crap, I only just saw your license agreement. Oh no. We've argued on here before, although this time we're in agreement. Please don't use this hidden license to dox me!
(It's an unenforceable joke, right? There's no way I'm bound by anything here other than maybe the site ToS.)
Caring enough to put in the effort of thinking and writing is not a "tangential issue". Laziness is a substantive defect, and sadly, I think that kelseyfrog has clocked this one correctly. There are borderline cases, but the cadence of this tweet thread is unmistakeable.
We don't have to live like this. We don't have to accept it. We don't have to upvote it even if we agree (as I do) with the explicit point. The medium is the message, and the message that this poster is putting out here is that online age verification isn't actually worth getting that worked up about.
And all we got was this wide-ranging essay that introduces about 140 different characters.
What a fun little essay. It takes a lot of skill to write such a nonlinear story of ideas and history, and to have the structure and the actual point emerge gradually like this. It also takes some attention and some faith on the part of the reader, and it sounds like a few people here got frustrated that it doesn't feel like a normal essay that tells you upfront where it's going and why.
One commenter saw the long second sentence and assumed that the author had messed up somehow, instead of clocking the heads-up that this is piece is going to be a bit unusual and demanding. We're slowly getting used to how LLMs keep every sentence short enough to digest without much effort.
An LLM could never write this, as others here have pointed out, at least not without some very involved, nonstandard prompting. I think it's going to be important for our brains to keep reading stuff like this that is structurally unique. It almost reads like a miniature Benjamin Labutut story.
Tapping a hardware guy as CEO sends a good signal, at least to me, looking in from the outside. The company is leading from its strength, and getting back to its roots. I wonder how Woz feels today, seeing this.
But somewhere in the mix, Apple could also really use another great product mind, like the other Steve. It has been too long since the last era-defining product from Cupertino.
I have no idea what that next big thing would be. And of course, a bad product mind in charge is worse than none at all! If the next big leaps come from other companies while Apple just keeps doing what it does best in the hardware categories that it already dominates, then I guess that's fine, too.
Yeah. Can we get a title change please?
Among the dup stories submitted, this one has the best content but the worst title.
He already had the trail of his retirement mapped out, and picked the perfect moment to blaze it.
2. To truly listen means to place yourself mentally and physically in a vulnerable state. Because you will likely hear things that run contrary to your experience, beliefs, and worldview. Judging people is often a self protection mechanism; which means you will almost never listen to someone.
A gem, thanks.
This can be especially rough for fans of early pg essays. You might find out that you didn't actually keep your identity so small after all. A double whammy!
Depends on the context. Maybe consult with one of the tone poem people before trying to play hardball at office politics.
There is a well-documented spectrum from direct to indirect styles of communication, among both cultures and individuals. The "tone poem" observation is a true description of that fact, even if it's a bit hyperbolic and colorful.
Language is a representation of our world...we all... will use different words to describe similar-ish concepts...
Strangely enough, both the direct and the indirect communicators live under the postmodern condition, and yet somehow, the stylistic differences persist! Somehow, despite all the smart-sounding things you could say about semiotics or relativism, individuals are all different!
The problem (or at least, one of the problems) with what the manager did is that he dumped his employee's prose into the LLM in a one-size-fits-all way.
Thanks! I think about this concept a lot, and now I know there's a name for it. "Preparedness paradox". I'll have to remember that.
And to your point, Y2K is right there on the wiki page for it.