Quote me where I said it does.

> yea nope you are right I agree you are sexist for insisting on doing the tie breaker on the basis of gender.

I never said to make the tie breaker based on gender. You're wrong again. You get a lot wrong.

Noted that you avoided most of my questions.

Ok, you still have zero experience in our industry, per your own words. And it shows.

> I don't consider the gender or race of people applying (aka not racist/sexist)

So you're ok with reinforcing any existing sexism and racism in the pipeline.

I'll give you a concrete example. We have to choose a speaker for our tech conference. All else being equal the tie-breaker will be to choose the person with the most speaking experience. Can you see how you've possibly and probably just reinforced existing sexism? I would guess you cannot see it.

> a subtle admission of active positive discrimination on your part

Nah. I usually don't have a say about who gets into the hiring pipeline. And when I have had a say I've always talked to recruiters about qualifications not gender or race. So you got that wrong.

> frankly if i was a woman maybe i would find it a little off putting that a bunch of old guys were real keen to get me under their supervision

You should speak to some actual women so you can correct your bad guesses.

A bunch of old guys? What makes you think they are guys or old?

Keen to get someone under their supervision? You sound creepy.

A website to discuss interesting things in thoughtful way that is largely free from sexism, ageism, and racism.

> the west seems like it is decades ahead with this sort of stuff

Some countries treated slaves better than other countries. Hopefully you can agree there was still a big problem to fix.

> social change on national scales don't happen overnight

Sure. And I'll be impatient and insistent until I live in the kind of world I want, which is one that is free as practically as possible from sexism, ageism, racism and other bias that keeps us from achieving what we are truly capable of as a species.

> If you look at the youth today, they are already much more accommodating towards diverse views

Which is why many of them avoid this site and call it "The Orange Site".

> Just give the world time and you'll see on average things will get better

I already said things are getting better. I also don't have time. I'm old. And the oppressed themselves have no patience. Nor should they.

> forcing your views onto people who grew up differently than you is just annoying

Who here is forcing their views on people who grew up differently?

If the price to pay for a better world is that I have to annoy some people who want to maintain the status quo, I am more than willing to pay that price. I wish it were actually that easy.

I've been working in this industry for almost four decades. Who grew up differently from me?

You need to go back and fix all your wrong assumptions. There are lots of them.

Our industry is still full of sexism and racism. Yes, things have gotten better. But most women in our industry can still tell you disturbing stories. We still have a long way to go.

HN is a generally going to reflect our industry. Some days are better than others here and it really depends on the topic. But it's pretty disappointing when you do come across some blatant sexism or racism and folks agree with it. PG himself is occasionally an angry privileged man moaning about the woke mob so it's no surprise not much has changed here over the decades. The owners like it this way. PG and Dang also get a lot right about how to run a site like this. Both can be true.

I gave a list of reasons why a chess engine is good for learning. Refute those as a start.

Here's another reason: an AI engine will point out illegal moves, and patiently over hundreds of games in your home. A free coach isn't going to come to your house and do that.

Neither will most friends or relatives. People get bored and move on.

Distortion was just another tool, and first rejected as highly undesirable. It's literally "just" putting an electric guitar through a tube amp and turning up the knob. And it revolutionized music. It sounds amazing in the right hands.

The more important point that I already made is the not all musicians are the same. Give a piano or a player piano to the vast majority of musicians and the output will be common and familiar. Give either to a musical genius like Hendrix and they'll manage to get something beautiful and new out of it. I'm looking forward to what the handful of geniuses out there will get out of AI. It's going to be fun.

Also I'm not claiming you can learn quicker by exclusively using AI. I'm claiming you can learn quicker by adding it to your set of tools. Human coaches and books are other tools you can or should use.

Even the some of the best chess players in the world are now using AI opponents to explore new ideas.

I've heard soulless music performed by highly trained musicians playing on great instruments. And soulful music played on crappy instruments by untrained musicians. On average, the great music comes from the more trained musicians on the better tools.

AI is just another tool. The vast majority of music is terrible. It will continue to be terrible. And a few geniuses will use AI the way Hendrix used the electric guitar. I'm excited to hear what that will sound like.

And you need to define great execution.

And you need to explain why intentionally having poor execution couldn't express a unique, profound emotion. On Radiohead's biggest hit Creep "That's the sound of Jonny trying to fuck the song up. He really didn't like it the first time we played it, so he tried spoiling it. And it made the song."

At the end of the day it's always going to seem all subjective and a matter of opinion. Because it's too hard to pinpoint the objective part of what we are doing when we decide what's great and what's garbage. If there even is an objective part.