https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/06/new-mexic...

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/nm-court-orders-meta-to-pay-5...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7lz3wr2rlo

https://www.wsj.com/tech/meta-ordered-to-pay-942-million-to-...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49204352

Points: 814

# Comments: 433

This is a legitimate question: should people have reputations? Should their behavior be made more visible publicly, both good and bad? How?

In a small contained society, where consequences are more directly affecting individuals immedately, these questions don't need to be asked, because they're inherantly answered. We now are a society with billions of people, and dire consequences sometimes deferred for a generation, or more. Part of our general failing is the lack of good answers to the above questions. For many people, there are rarely negative consequences for causing harm to others, and the rewards can be very great indeed.

Sometimes you need speed; sometimes you need quality. There are very different use cases for each. For my own workflows, I sometimes want something very simple done ASAP; other workflows need "subjective" reasoning and careful crafting of responses.

>> Were any of the words here written using AI? Nope. They came from my mouth or my fingers.

I have to push back on this a bit, as I believe (quite strongly) that we're shaped by the tools we use; text-to-speech LLMs are still LLMs, and generally their mistakes are shaped by the expectations inherent in their training. This, in turn, shapes the words that appear on the screen. For those who regularly use them, you then learn which word sequences are likely to be accurately transcribed, and this definitively becomes part of your thinking process. Over time, the LLM becomes tangled into your thinking; the use of AI, even in this way, very much can and often does shape the resulting words.

Nobody should "sacrifice future career prospects" just for a job. And if they do, it's hard to blame the employer on this, especially considering the premise implies they had choice in the matter.

Multiply this times many, many companies, and you can see how providing AI could theoretically be a good business to be in. Margins may be tight, though.

Also -- I'm convinced someone will figure out more use cases beyond software programming, which will result in many more companies spending $1k+ per employee per month.

It remains to be seen how much of this is a bubble.

I'm not arguing that we should try to exaggerate our biases, or even to center them, but rather, we can become more honest by making our biases clear and explicit to those we're communicating with. Many organizations avoid openly addressing their biases, which makes them less honest overall, and more prone to being deceptive. If you're aware of your biases you can actually account for them, as opposed to letting them blind you. Further, if you're public with that awareness, others can account for them as well, and be less likely to be deceived (even accidentally) by your communication.

Too often, bias is ignored. It always exists. If we name it and make it visible, then we can have a chance at reducing its potential for deception.

Rather, I'm saying you should acknowledge that you are influenced and will influence, and be explicit about what those influences are. This is the only way to actually combat bias; not by eliminating bias, but by making it visible, so it can be accounted for with everyone's thinking.