> Your new hairdo comes into question because we trusted you to look good, which is why we wanted to be around you, and you violated that trust.
No, you're not describing the problem @nyeah explained in their comment.
If you really want to torture your hairdo analogy into describing the problem, here's what it would look like:
You cut hair for people, take photographs of their hairdos, and put them up in the newspaper ads for your salon. Now your ads are suddenly showing photos of people who used to go to your salon, with Photoshopped hairdos and forged haircut dates. Your ex-customers are upset.
> Now your ads are suddenly showing photos of people who used to go to your salon, with Photoshopped hairdos and forged haircut dates.
That reads more like the second half of the original comment, while this discussion, as quoted, has clearly always about the first bit: "Using AI to fake posting activity is bad." Let's not change the subject. A discussion cannot be had if you start inventing new context out of the blue.
In an effort to try to desperately salvage your salon analogy, this is like the salon showing photos of wigs and you becoming upset foolishly thinking it was someone's natural hair even though you like what the wig looks like and it has inspired your next, not so ugly haircut. Why is that so upsetting? If you really don't like what you see, why not move on and go the other salon next door? What is to be gained from crying over a business?
> That reads more like the second half of the original comment, while this discussion, as quoted, has clearly always about the first bit: "Using AI to fake posting activity is bad." Let's not change the subject. A discussion cannot be had if you start inventing new context out of the blue.
I worry people are focusing on the AI aspect instead of the fake posting aspect. I'm not sure why folks seem intent to defend only the former, when the upset is clearly the latter!
> That reads more like the second half of the original comment, while this discussion, as quoted, has clearly always about the first bit: "Using AI to fake posting activity is bad." Let's not change the subject. A discussion cannot be had if you start inventing new context out of the blue.
If you were right about the change of context, I would tell you to take that up with @nyeah, because my reply to you was about how you misrepresented their comment.
That said, there was no change of context. Your assertion that the discussion "has clearly always been about the first bit" is factually incorrect. Both @xp84 and @nyeah made it clear that the issue they've raised is not limited to the "fakeness" of the posts, but that it also includes the "realness" of the users who were being impersonated.
> In an effort to try to desperately salvage your salon analogy [...]
No, I don't think I will continue to engage with your attempts to misrepresent this discussion. If you had done that once or twice, it could have been an honest mistake, but the pattern you've established indicates that you're arguing in bad faith.
As the one who isolated the context out of the OP the carried forward into the remainder of this discussion, I can confirm 9rx has it right. Any bad faith attempts to bring in points unrelated to the discussion that was taking place are rightfully ignored.
You haven't isolated any context. You have either accidentally misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented the expression "using AI to fake posting activity" to mean "AI posts do not count as posting activity", rather than "AI posts masquerading as human posts are dishonest".
Then you kept doubling down on there being nothing wrong with passing off AI activity as human activity. At every point, you either ignored or failed to understand any attempt to explain that, no matter what words were used.
To top it all off, you are now claiming that the point about taking over human accounts to deepen the deception is somehow "unrelated to the discussion" and brought up in bad faith.
I can't think of a way to respond to that while conforming to the HN guidelines of "being kind" and "conversing curiously", so I'll stop here.
> You have either accidentally misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented the expression "using AI to fake posting activity" to mean
The original comment asserted: "Using AI to fake posting activity is bad." So, yes, I agree that "bad" is ill-defined, but our discussion, aside from your ridiculous diversions, has been about trying to break down what that really means. If it was already well understood there wouldn't be a discussion to have here.
Now, we don't know what you think it means since you don't seem to want to participate in good faith, but what it doesn't mean is some idea of 'taking over accounts', as the comment in question goes on to talk about that later as a separate idea.
> Then you kept doubling down on there being nothing wrong with passing off AI activity as human activity.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Not only does it not seem to have any relevance to the discussion, we currently lack the technology to make AI look human, so, while that may become a future problem, there is currently not a concern. Currently we only ever see AI in places where one is able to see, without ambiguity, that they are looking at the product of software.
Whether or not that hypothetical future needs to see passing AI activity off as being human as being "wrong" is really for the future to decide. We cannot realistically imagine what other conditions might exist in that time to consider the full picture. AI being able to appear human, if we ever get there, will not be the only evolution in technology and society to take place. It won't be today's world with one variable tweaked. Looking at it through today's lens is foolish at best.
Although "lies" might be too strong a word, I agree with you that the the AI-is-the-future people haven't done nearly enough to prove their claims. But that's nothing new in our industry, really.
I would recommend "The Leprechauns of Software Engineering" by Laurent Bossavit for an insightful and entertaining overview of just how much of software "engineering" is based on "truths" that we don't question.
You're not insane. And if you are insane, you're not alone, because I used to get a similar feeling when I was first exposed to this kind of discourse. It creates cognitive dissonance in people like you and me, because you can clearly see that it was well-intentioned and grounded in the idea of empathy, but it ends up lacking empathy in ways that people like us consider important.
The comment you're referring to aims to be helpful and empathetic, but the fundamental problem with it is that it essentially dismisses the very real problems people are raising. It tells you that the change is inevitable and that you shouldn't and/or can't fight it. It tells you that what you're dealing with are your own feelings and, although they're "valid" (in the sense that it's understandable and human to have them), you need to work on overcoming them or finding a way around them. And if you can't, then you should either move out of the way of the progress or you'll remain unhappy.
It's an incredibly frustrating way of being talked to, one that I've seen managers employ quite a lot. I call it the "management aikido", because it takes your own impetus and turns it back on you, by reframing whatever issue you brought up to put the onus on you. Most of the managers I've seen use this technique believe they're doing a good thing by "empowering" you to deal with problems. What it does, in fact, is discourage you from raising issues in the first place.
On top of having the same "management aikido" vibe, @jvanderbot's comment ends up being "socially insensitive", for lack of a better way of describing it.
Over the course of history, we've seen great shifts -- typically tied to technological evolution -- that caused significant suffering to a group of people but (arguably) ended up being a net positive for our society. And when we look back, we inevitably feel a sense of empathy for those people and we recognize that what happened to them sucked and we express the hope that maybe next time we could do better as a society.
And then it happens again, like it's happening now, and we not only fail to do better as a society, but we talk like trying to do better is unreasonable.
That, in essence, is what makes @jvanderbolt's comment sound "religious" to you: the unquestioned assumption that what is happening is supposed to be happening and that it's you who has a problem that you have to work on.
Yeah I think you nailed it. I also think there's a degree to which we pretend victims of economic injustice aren't "real", for lack of a better word.. If the original comment was re-framed around vehicular manslaughter or rape, I think people could more clearly see that it isn't really empathetic. That's why the sheer reaction that it got from so many people kind of blew me away.
I'm definitely stealing "management aikido" by the way, thanks for that. :)
> The problem is that, as we are currently seeing, that any administration can reverse any policy previously set. So any regulation is not a permanent solution.
Depends on what you mean by "can". You're right in that any administration that successfully abandons the rule of law can do anything they want, but that's not a problem inherent to regulation as a concept. Regulation is a good solution, but it won't work when a corrupt, lawless regime is in power. It's kinda like saying we shouldn't vaccinate because being forced to drink toilet water can kill us.
As for not being a permanent solution, that's okay. No regulation is meant to be permanent. Regulations are supposed to change, but there's supposed to be a process to follow and that process is supposed to ensure that the change happens for the good of the society and is governed by the will of the people.
The fact that none of those prerequisites are currently satisfied does not imply that regulation doesn't work.
This administration has gotten SCOTUS to agree that many of these agencies are under control of POTUS and not independent agencies. That means the agencies work at the whims of POTUS or else POTUS will replace the agency leadership with people that will. That will see an exodus of other people that would potentially put up any resistance.
So I'm not really sure where you seem to think an abandonment of rule of law is at play
The rule of law means that everyone, including the administration, has to follow the laws. When an administration repeatedly ignores or defies court orders, they have abandoned the rule of law.
Others have already talked to you about the significance of your anecdata and your faintly dismissive tone, but there's something else in your comment that tickled me and that no one's addressed yet:
> 2010-2020 felt like tech dystopia to me. Cellphone incrementalism, walled gardens, adtech, crypto, locked down devices. It was a pale shadow of the excitement of the early web. Personal websites, kids making Flash games, the indie web, p2p, people building stuff being 70% of the internet. For the first time in a long time, I feel extremely hopeful about the future and excited to work with tech again.
Who do you think was responsible for that dystopia? It wasn't those people you mentioned, who built the 70% of the old internet. The enshittification started when the people whose passion in life is to make money caught the scent of money-making potential the internet had.
But then, how did those people actually accomplish the enshittification we're dealing with now? The answer is: with the enthusiastic help of the True Believers. Crypto is the best example. Just recall how many devs were convinced that the blockchain was going to revolutionize everything. And I mean devs. Not snake-oil peddlers in suits, not LinkedIn influencers, none of the usual posse of posers, but people who actually wrote code and were reasonably good at that.
And that's not the only example, just the best one. I've been there myself. Back when OOP, UML, capital-A Agile, CMMi, and MDA (Model Driven Architecture) were the Hot New Thing, I was one of the True Believers, following the trends and proselytizing my colleagues.
Every bit of the dystopia you lament was pushed by the combination of ambitious MBAs and True Believer devs.
And the reason I bring this up is because you're one of those True Believers now. It's easy to fall into that trap. All you need is to have enough good experiences with the Hot New Thing to suppress your critical thinking and believe that this will Make Everything Great Again.
The same kind of people who profited off the tech dystopia you saw are now ushering a new, worse tech dystopia that you're turning a blind eye to. Your belief that this new tech will somehow balance and even counteract what those people did to the internet you loved is not based in facts. It's faith.
> Yes, using original paint in 16 colors saved to PCX in 640x480 should be enough for anybody.
There's a wide, wide gap between adding features that your users need and adding features that you want to cram down their throats to promote other products that you want them to use.
> Or we could let owners of properties add features as they see fit.
Or we could let paying users offer legitimate criticism of the products they use, without essentially telling them to shut up.
> Well the government was illegitimate. Is that what you're contending happening here?
When the jury of your peers decides that you should not be punished for something despite the law stating otherwise, it is a powerful statement. There's a reason why the judicial system is set up to allow this.
> Are you trying to overthrow the police department or municipal government?
The people in the US are not there yet. But you might want to recall JFK's words: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
Take a look at what's happening in the US, think about it for a while, and then come back and tell everyone whether you think the people are being properly represented by their government and served by their public servants.
> How do you feel about Jan 6?
I feel that Jan 6 is one of the watershed moments that led us to where we are now. The fact that those responsible weren't punished was a clear signal that the rule of law was being abandoned.
You're behaving like the relationship between the government and the people is symmetrical. It's not. When the government stops obeying its own laws, people take notice.
No, you're not describing the problem @nyeah explained in their comment.
If you really want to torture your hairdo analogy into describing the problem, here's what it would look like:
You cut hair for people, take photographs of their hairdos, and put them up in the newspaper ads for your salon. Now your ads are suddenly showing photos of people who used to go to your salon, with Photoshopped hairdos and forged haircut dates. Your ex-customers are upset.
reply