There is complaint, like someone complaining that they don't like your new haircut, but it is ultimately not their haircut to worry about. How is your apparent poor choice in style a problem to the onlooker?

Let's imagine that a tapeworm is living inside your body. You might complain. But I'd see nothing wrong. Only users with tapeworms, who also objected to being parasitized, would have grounds for complaint. (Keep in mind, many of them might not have any symptoms yet.) So, with no reason to complain, maybe the rest of us should conclude that tapeworms are beneficial and everybody should get one.

So I think some commenters here are saying, no, tapeworms sound like a health problem. But they're revealing more about themselves than about their understanding of the big picture. To me, no judgement, but those commenters come across like human beings. If I'm a worm, these "health problem" complaints are the problem. The solution is for people to keep quiet.

Right. 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. However, it is your hair to fashion as you please, no? What is the significance of us complaining about how you are now ugly? What does it mean in the grand scheme of things? What makes it more than idle gossip that will be completely forgotten next week?

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

The key point is that nobody cares, and nobody should care, whether the humans all get infected by tapeworms. That's the worms' business and nobody else's.

"I would never defend . But this article is such egregious ragebait that I must speak out. It's a very sad outcome. But it's also clearly ."

Irony notice. This comment contains irony.

You can see problem easy. Less easy to magically fix.

2. Sure, but has always been plenty bunk in literature. Professional literature. Difficult to read. Lyerning to decode literature takes years. PhD help but not sufficient. Literature was never meant to be taken so seriously as spectators imagine. Old problem. Was old problem 1980s.

These authors don't seem to be disputing that this Lean formalization of Navier-Stokes is correct. I don't think that gives us any new information about whether the generated Lean proof is or isn't a valid proof of this N-S blowup thing.