Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49579040

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

In the end though, these reviewers will die off like the dinosaurs. The article actually states that they find the idea of reviewing a large PR with AI bad because "it wastes your tokens reviewing a reingesting code that was already made by an AI". This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, AI will frequently reingest AI generated content, evals are a great example of this.

Just after this the article touches on the real issue at play: "okay, great, why did you put it up for a human review at all then?". Indeed, this is a good question to ask, why do we put it up for human review? I would wager that they don't actually want human feedback, a human has placed themselves as a gatekeeper and thus must be placated, and probably chooses the most inefficient way to keep that gate slowing everyone down who has kept up with the technology of our times.

I am back at the office now, and am enjoying the separation between work and home.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49218468

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49051685

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

a) They don't acknowledge this was a problem.

b) They are unwilling to tackle this problem.

c) They are unable to tackle this problem.

I'd love to know what the people who run the site (from a business perspective) think about this. It might offer some insight into its cousins that are going down the same path (reddit / wikipedia).

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48899499

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

To begin to understand this, you have to examine the actions of the heroes as critically as the villains as defined in this piece. The article lays out clearly the negative desires of the villains, and the positive desires of the heroes, but do the heroes have any negative aspects? Does the EU simply want to protect consumers or is there an argument that they are the law to unfairly targeting American companies? What about the villains, do they have any positive aspects? Does Musk want humanity to keep existing to the point where he is willing to put capital on the line to give our species a backup planet?

The point of this comment isn't to defend the villains or vilify the heroes, its to recognise that these issues are not simple as defined by the article, and in presenting them as simple you don't end up with an understanding of the core question: "How the Tech World Turned Evil".

This article is, as you might expect, the usual cast of villains and the usual cast of saviors. The villains only act like villains, and the heroes only act like heroes. Never once are the heroes actions suspect, and never once are the villains actions sympathetic.

If you support the heroes of this article, and your dopamine lights up when your opinions are echoed in a publication, then you may love this article. Having said that, I am sure you have read this same article over and over again in many different forms, I certainly have.

I am referencing only the American zeitgeist, I assume other countries might have better systems.

EDIT: You will notice a lot of talk about high pay. It's important to note that this is not without major punishment for financial mismanagement. You can't have one without the other, it's not just a question of giving politicians a bigger trough to put their snout in.

I remain unconvinced that we can't do better than a system of government that is over 200 years old that only exists as a function of the technology at the time.