> The article accurately cites real Gallup data but selectively omits findings that complicate its "backlash" narrative — most notably that curiosity is Gen Z's single most common emotion toward AI, and that daily users remain substantially more hopeful and excited than the aggregate figures suggest. The 79% "laziness" concern and declining hope figures are presented as evidence of generational rejection, when the researchers themselves describe what they found as "deep ambivalence." *In short, the article uses real numbers to tell a cleaner, more oppositional story than the underlying polling actually supports.*

Then I then put that Claude critique back into Claude and asked it to analyze the critique for bias and agendas and got this:

> The critique accurately catches real flaws in The Verge article — particularly the omission of "curiosity" as Gen Z's top emotion and the failure to distinguish between heavy users (who are more positive) and non-users (who drive most of the negativity). However, *the critique has its own directional bias, consistently framing every correction in ways that soften the negative trend, while ignoring data that cuts the other way — like the sharp positivity decline even among daily users, and the near-majority of Gen Z workers who see AI as a net negative in the workplace. *Both pieces are selectively using the same real data to tell opposite stories; the Gallup findings themselves are more nuanced and more negative than the critique allows.*

So according to Claude, Claude is biased in how it describes The Verge as biased.

LLMs are breakthrough technologies. The AI products we have today are SaaS products built by companies doing everything they can to find people who will pay for them. Very, very different things.

This is only true if you assume that an AI tool is itself unbiased. I'm not sure how anyone can earnestly believe AI tools are unbiased after Grok's MechaHitler episode [0], unless they just aren't giving it much critical thought.

0 - https://www.npr.org/2025/07/09/nx-s1-5462609/grok-elon-musk-...

UN - https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/debunking-eight-...

MIT - https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/todays-climate-change-simila...

Columbia University - https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/04/04/how-we-know-cli...

It's also unclear to me how scientists might not have enough data to validate climate change in the last several hundred years, but they do have enough data to validate the natural cycle hypothesis spanning thousands of years.

I'm not going to engage more deeply here because this post has the smell of trolling to it, but if you're engaging in good faith, there are hundreds of reputable reports refuting the natural cycle hypothesis:

https://www.google.com/search?q=natural+cycle+arguments+on+c...

Baking has been a major hobby for 15 years. I know the dangers of raw egg and flour but licking the bowl/beaters/spoons is still a major highlight of many of my recipes. And, of course, there's always raw cookie dough.

Maybe not the smartest choice for longevity and health, but yes, eating raw flour is totally a thing!

Major footnote here that I'm wayyyy out of my wheelhouse on this stuff, so there may be reasons that this doesn't work. I invite correction if that's the case so we can all learn some stuff :)

:)

The legal system has recognized truth as a wholly adequate defense to claims of defamation (which includes slander) dating back to 1734 [3] - before the Constitution even written (1787).

--

[0] - "Under the United States law, a statement cannot be held to be actionable as slanderous or libellous if the statement is true but has "slight inaccuracies of expression", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_truth

[1] - "Truth is widely accepted as a complete defense to all defamation claims." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

[2] - "Truth is an absolute defense to defamation." https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privileges-defenses-...

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peter_Zenger

https://www.epi.org/publication/what-is-the-gender-pay-gap-a...

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/07/01/racial-ge...

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/women-of-color-and-...

I’m happy to continue this debate if you’d like to start supporting your posts with citations but probably won’t engage further unless you do. Have a great day!

This is a fair critique. I'm approaching this from an admittedly American perspective in which "free market" colloquially implies competition - but I recognize that competition is not inherently a free market concept.

Good callout!

"Because barriers to entry protect incumbent firms and restrict competition in a market, they can contribute to distortionary prices and are therefore most important when discussing antitrust policy."

Antitrust policy then links to a page on competition law: "Competition law is the field of law that promotes or seeks to maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies." [0]

So yes, I'd downvote you if I could, but HN doesn't allow downvotes - which is honestly pretty fitting in the context of this conversation.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

Edit - and another 10 defending the decision on HackerNews forums

Yes. When Joe is buying a couple homes, he doesn't have to pay for HR, business dev, legal, compliance, etc etc. And -

> That needs evidence.

Fair enough! I care about this topic, but not enough about this thread to make a carefully cited case here (no offense to you, friend). I'm sharing from anecdotes and personal (albeit unscientific) research.

> Someone buys a two flat, lives in one and rents the other to help pay for the mortgage. That has classically been ok. You're only objecting to the short term ones?

Yep, and I've come around on this. I used to think landlord = bad (in college, we're all young and naive at some point), but I've come around to the real economic need for an LTR market. I'm thinking of cases where an individual buys up a handful of properties to use as STRs, removing them from the LTR market (which reduces supply which increases rates of the remaining units). I have seen this happen in my area in real time but I recognize that it is scientifically unsound to extrapolate that to other areas.