How is AI policy regarded off-topic? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43793875

My uninformed opinion is that this post is not interesting (AI is boring but that's another subject), it's a politics article, and Hacker News has the word hacker in its title which is why I expect some technical stuff.

And yes, it applies to every other post, I believe HN has way too much politics and societal content.

> international tensions based on tech policy are an interesting phenomenon

We had that forever, for example in the 90s with cryptography. It was way more scary at the time, but still not on topic for such a forum.

>Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon

It's politics and boring.

Nowhere in the guidelines does it say anything about a technical perspective. It calls for things that hackers might find interesting - which I would argue the future of AI globally clearly qualifies as.

I would say that it's strongly implied, by phrases like "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" and "some interesting new phenomenon".

Wouldn't you say international tensions based on tech policy are an interesting phenomenon and of interest to people working in tech? I'd say it squarely fits that descriptor.

Nope, I definitely wouldn't.

Then we disagree and I'd challenge you on lacking the intellectual curiosity called for in the guidelines. But that's okay - as long as you don't see a need to censor on that basis.

> I'd challenge you on lacking the intellectual curiosity called for in the guidelines.

This is unnecessarily hostile.

I'd say claiming that tech policy relating to AI and it's global implications are not interesting to people working in tech and AI is a bad faith argument - calling it lacking intellectual curiosity is once again an attempt at a good-faith reading of what is an absurd point to make.