Have YOU? It's obvious to me that his example is a rhetorical device which you're taking literally. Do you also realize he's not talking about an actual cocktail? You need to get a diagnosis ASAP.

If you get to "talk to lawmakers" by giving them money, it is corruption.

Mullvad browser is my favorite browser, and it's tor browser minus connection to tor.

For example, a software engineer is like a car mechanic or a coal miner. None of those are anything like a mathematician.

The person you're rallying against isn't me, it's an imaginary hypocritical person which exists in your mind. I do mental labour, I welcome AI developments hard, and I still think TT is 100% correct.

But if you're consdiering a community, this falls apart. The maths community has universities, has professors who are paid, has students which are getting their degrees for varying reasons, it has conferences, has publications, papers, projects etc etc, all of which will get some negative impact some AI.

You know that line "when a measurement becomes a target it ceases to be a useful measurement". This line holds up to different degrees for various measurements and targets. For maths it holds up very well. The goal is "contribute to make the world better by increasing humanity's understanding of maths" and the measurement, which by evaluating an individual on it we're turning into a target, is "how much does the individual publish new findings". Measurement turned target holds up great. It's almost impossible to publish new findings and not contribute to humanity's understanding of maths. But with AI these two are being decoupled. You can produce lots of new findings, but the community is saturated and they don't get assimilated into humanity's understanding. Why do individuals use AI then? Because you've made the target "how much does the individual publish new findings" and they have to compete or lose.

Every time I've said on HN "I don't trust google with anything, not with software or hardware" someone shows up and goes "bUt ItS oPeN sOuRcE".

Folks, just because something is or isn't open source, the story doesn't end there. It doesn't there aren't levers of power which may be invisible to you.

I was right, as usual.

closed

But when it comes to you, you don't mind that you're putting out low quality stuff because it's worth the benefit to you being able to claim you delivered something.

So to answer your question - you didn't say it anywhere. I'm explaining to you rationally where your feeling is coming from.

So yes, it's ironic because "the masses" normally want democracy, but the person you're responding to is conflating two things one which is good for "the masses" and the other one is bad.