It's always funny to me how often comments like yours show up, despite a long history on here of diverse thoughts and intellectual curiosities, technological or otherwise.
replyBut especially funny and bewildering in this case is that you have this in your About section of your HN user account:
> A journey from the liberal arts to hacking the latest gadgets or statistics.I find it slightly creepy that people are reading my past thoughts. Time to look into privacy settings.
replyI just felt like the article wasn't particularly well written.
Just because AI can produce slop, doesn't mean humans don't either.
> Time to look into privacy settings.
replyHere is a privacy setting: leave the "about:" field blank in your profile, if you don't want anyone reading it?
It's one click away from every one of your comments; no digging required.
You say you felt like the article wasn't well-written (which I disagree with, btw, it was clear and with many nice turns of phrase), but your comment complained about it not being very hackery or newsy. Maybe your comment was thick cause we were supposed to figure out what you actually mean.
replyHacker news comments aren't private, and they shouldn't be private. I find it interesting that you think your own public soapbox declarations should not be discoverable.
replyDiving deep into something is a core aspect of hacking.
replyBecause it's about AI
replyBecause it's thick.
replyAs you delve further into the article, and (ironically, based on the topic) consider the ideas presented, it becomes more clear. Or skip to near the end to see.
replyTLDR: AI and generic pop culture artifacts have something in common - a lack of a certain type of depth that makes art great.
I think that's not the author's point; he's mostly talking that time solidifies ideas as shown by the evolution of points of view. At the same time, his picture of the wave shows that over time the painting feels more distilled and simplified. So is his point actually that simple ideas persist and are appealing? It isn't clear? That an art improves?
replyI think slop-pocalypse misses one thing. AI's time of thinking is very different than ours.
A "thick" argument that could take a lifetime in human terms could happen in minutes of AI.
So it seems in summary you do see the "H" and "N" of it, you just disagree with some parts of the article.
reply