Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49519792

Points: 121

# Comments: 31

Silly example: I pay Netflix for their most basic plan, so I get ads. Just because I already pay them money, doesn't mean I have a right to no ads! It also doesn't mean I have a right to 8k streaming; maybe Netflix reserves that for their internal cinema.

I'm not really clear what it means to be designated a "covered frontier model" however? If it's a standard term, I haven't encountered it before.

@dang I know you have so far resisted a rule for AI-generated content (as we now have for comments), but I personally would prefer a flag for articles so that I don't waste my time on slop.

I still don't like this new trend of dismissing the hard problem altogether. We really don't have an explanation of phenomenal consciousness—it might even require novel physics to explain! [2]

I'd also like to point out that, though this might seem like a semantic argument, it has meaningful consequences for how we approach science and ethics. [3] For example, if we are physicalists and accept that phenomenal consciousness is a property of the world, what does this tell us about other unobservable properties of the world science may be missing? (Recall that we only know about phenomenal consciousness through our own experience of it; we cannot observe it in others)

[1] https://write.ianwsperber.com/p/what-is-the-color-blue

[2] https://youtu.be/DI6Hu-DhQwE?si=RB3qkt6PZ62SVpx3&t=2493

[3] https://write.ianwsperber.com/p/morality-without-consciousne...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48019325

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Fair enough if the use of “dopamine” is imprecise, but excessive screen time / doomscrolling / shitposting is definitely enough to wire you awake on its own, without caffeine.

PS I’m not referencing a well-known book to suggest the solution is trite product group think, but good product thinking is a talent separate from good engineering, and Anthropic seems short on the later recently

Pertinent quote. A lot of AI discourse goes in circles trying to evaluate the truthiness of every individual complaint about AI. Obviously it's good to ensure claims are factual! But I believe it misses a broader point that people are resistant to AI, often out of fear, and are grasping for strategies to exert control. Or at least that's my read of it.

Refuting individual claims won't make a difference if the underlying anxieties aren't addressed (e.g., if I lose my job will I be compensated, will we protect ourselves against x-risk, etc).

To be clear, I accept you might be right, but I think the crux is whether lag time is increasing, steady or growing.