>Would your prompt have been identical and produced identical results, today, tomorrow, which version of AI would you have used, were there bugs present that made the post or comment interesting that would have been absent in your response because the bug had been fixed already?
Why is that relevant to GP's point?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I come to HN to discuss stuff with other humans. If I wanted an LLM's (it's not AI, it's a predictive text algorithm) regurgitations, I can generate those myself and don't need "helpful" HNers to do it for me unasked.
When I come here I want to have a discussion with other sentient beings, not the gestalt of training data regurgitated by a bot.
Perhaps that makes me old-fashioned and/or bigoted against interacting with large language models, but that's what I want.
In discussion, I want to know what other sentient beings think, not an aggregation of text tokens based on their probability of being used in a particular sequence determined by the data fed to model.
The former can (but may well not be) a creative, intellectual act by a sentient being. The latter will never be so, as it's an aggregation of existing data/information as a sequence of tokens cobbled together based on the frequency with which such tokens are used in a particular order in the model's corpus.
That's not to say that LLM are useless. They are not. But their place is not in "curious conversation," IMNSHO.
>I was exposed to porn several ways pre-Internet. Older siblings, news stands, late night cable. If I wanted more, I could get it. It was simply not a problem.
Yup. Me too.
And it goes back much further. Cf. "Pictures of Lily"[0] for a pop culture exposition from nearly sixty years ago. The point being that "porn" isn't anything new, nor was it difficult to obtain (hence a popular song about "porn") even before computer networks.
Edit: For those who would cite the current ubiquity of "hardcore" porn on the 'net, I'd say that's a difference in degree, not in kind. Something to consider.
>It’s actually gracious of them to offer an alternative.
I strongly disagree. The courts have repeatedly struck down limits on domestic travel over the past couple hundred years.
In fact, the $45 "fee" is an acknowledgment that you aren't required to have special documents to travel within the US. Otherwise, they just wouldn't let you travel.
So instead, they're making more security theater and punishing you if you don't comply with their demands.
That's not "gracious," that's coercive.
Edit: Fixed incorrect usage ("they'd" vs. "they").
>So, for example: As a native-born US citizen, that's a new requirement for me -- nothing else I've ever done in life has required me to prove my citizenship.
Unless you're really young (under 16 or so) and/or never had a job that paid wages, you've "proved" your citizenship (well, more specifically your right to work in the US which, in your case, adds up to the same thing) by filling out an IRS W9 form[0], which is required for any jobs which pays wages (whether that be hourly wages or a straight salary) by certifying -- under penalty of perjury if you lie -- that you're either a citizen or otherwise allowed to work in the US.[1]
I'm guessing you've "proven" your citizenship (or at least your legal presence/right to work in the US) at least once and likely (depending on how many employers you've had) more often.[3]
[3] Please note that I'm absolutely not playing "gotcha" here. Rather, I'm pointing out that although we don't have Federal ID cards (although a passport certainly is that, and you Taxpayer ID Number -- usually your Social Security number -- are, in fact, Federal IDs) and RealID isn't a "Federal" ID. It's an "enhanced" (i.e., specific and often additional information specified by the Federal government is required to be submitted to your state of residence's licensing authority (usually the state Department of Motor Vehicles). As such, it's not actually a Federal ID, but a state ID with standardized requirements for verification across the US.
And yes, I agree. On multiple occasions in my adult life, I've "proved" my citizenship under threat of perjury, but that is only to say: I've made a statement on a form with my signature on it. My word alone was ~enough.
But to get a Real ID, my word alone isn't adequate: I have to prove my citizenship by presenting documentation.
In my home state of Ohio, that proof requires me to show up at the BMV and provide documentation[1] showing five different elements:
1 - Full Legal Name
2 - Date of Birth
3 - Legal Presence in US
4 - Social Security Number;
5 - Ohio Street Address
...and most of this is easy-enough.
But element 3, legal presence, is a bit tougher. There's a number of documents that are accepted, but only one of them is applicable to a plain-Jane native-born-Ohioan who does not have a passport.
That document is an original birth certificate, or a certified copy of one.
I don't have that. I have a copy, but it's just a copy. It is a copy that was made by the city's Health Department and it is on the fancy green cardstock they use, but it's still just a copy and this just-a-copy is not a certified copy. (I know this, because when I got that copy decades ago to join the military, they asked if I wanted a certified copy at extra expense and I said "No." This not-certified copy that I have was plenty good-enough to enlist, serve, and get paid in the US Armed Forces -- but it's not good enough for a Real ID. My original DD214 is also not good enough.)
Accordingly, I'll have to make a trip to my hometown and again pay them some money for a copy, with some extra money on top for whatever it is that it means for that copy to be "certified."
And then, I'll be able to go to the BMV and pay them more money too, and get a new ID mailed to me eventually that will re-enable me to fly on domestic commercial flights without fuckery.
>And yes, I agree. On multiple occasions in my adult life, I've "proved" my citizenship under threat of perjury, but that is only to say: I've made a statement on a form with my signature on it. My word alone was ~enough.
Sorry for the late reply.
You're absolutely right. As I said, that wasn't a "gotcha", but rather an acknowledgement that "proving" legal status to the Federal government, while gamed by those without such status, still carries criminal penalties if you're caught lying. And the same is true for RealID as well.
>But element 3, legal presence, is a bit tougher. There's a number of documents that are accepted, but only one of them is applicable to a plain-Jane native-born-Ohioan who does not have a passport.
>That document is an original birth certificate, or a certified copy of one.
A fair point. Weirdly, I had my original birth certificate for many years but it disintegrated. So when I needed it get a RealID (although I already have a passport which I also renewed around the same time) I was able to go online to the County Clerk in New York County, New York (better known as Manhattan) and get a certified copy of my birth certificate for a nominal fee (I'd note that a third-party fulfilled the order for a certified copy, with an additional credit card usage fee).
Which made things much easier as I was concerned I'd need to go to the County Clerk's at least once, possibly more to obtain a certified copy.
Not sure if Ohio County Clerks will do the same. If not, that sucks.
In any case, while it's more than mostly security theater, it wasn't (especially given that I needed a new driver's license anyway) all that big a deal for me. That could be radically different (and more difficult) for others, both those from other counties and who may not have been (mostly much older folks) included in registered births.
So yeah, it's basically yanking our chains for no good reason other than Congress posturing that they're "tough" on terrorism and co-opting the states to do all the hard work. Sigh.
>The problem is that any hiring test that blacks and whites pass at different rates, is presumed racist. Never mind that the real issue might be that the blacks went to worse schools and received a worse education.
Your first sentence is the result of bigotry against those with "enhanced" melanin content, not the cause.
The cause is laid out in your second sentence.
Resolve the systemic bigotry (not just against those with enhanced melanin content, but against those with the least resources as, at least in the US, most schools are paid for by local property taxes, making the poorest areas the ones with the worst schools) and put us all on a level playing field and we'll be a much fairer society IMNSHO.
A politically powerful minority calls ability tests racist because they make minorities look bad. An opposing offensive minority uses those same ability tests as evidence that minorities are simply inferior. Courts ruled that those using the tests should be presumed racist because the results show racial differences.
The result of all of this is a policy, meant to help minorities, that fails them. At great expense to all of us.
And an actual easy to identify factor which sustains racial differences - poor educational policies - is politically off limits to think about. "Because that would cost money."
The resulting mess is in alternating turns absurd and sad.
>30 years ago it was rather normal that a manager would touch the behind of a coworker, which is clearly a bad thing. Nowadays looking in their direction a bit too long seems to be labeled 'not done'.
I was in the workforce 30 years ago and, no, it was absolutely not normal.
It was what we called an "HR violation" and a "Career limiting move."
Not sure where you were 30 years ago, but except in bordellos and strip clubs that wasn't "normal." Not even close.
But it actually seems to be true. Plex is charging you (and anyone you wish to share your media library with) to access your own media library remotely.
Huh? That should be a death sentence for Plex, right?
I can (and do) share my media library with jellyfin and other streaming servers. No one has tried to charge me for doing so.
One of the reasons I didn't use Plex back in 2019 when I was setting up my self-hosted streaming solution was that it required a log in on Plex's servers to play my locally hosted media. Which I thought was a bridge too far.
Now they're trying charge for accessing your own content? WTF?
Edit: I was unaware that Plex also provides "external" (e.g., not your local library) streams as well as locally hosted ones. As such, there's other stuff provided by the "Plex Pass" as well. Not sure if this makes a difference for users, but it certainly doesn't change my mind. That said, I wasn't going to use Plex anyway.
I hope those who do aren't too inconvenienced by the new charges/subscription requirements to play their own media.
>No, it wasn't clear. I know several Trump voters who either didn't know Project 2025 existed or believed the lies that it was a liberal hoax.
>To anyone paying an ounce of attention, yeah it might have been clear.
Many, many folks were out there long before the election saying (both as promises -- from the Trumpers and warnings -- from pretty much everyone else) that Project 2025 would be the blueprint for a new Trump administration.
That some folks either ignored or disbelieved it doesn't make it "unclear." Rather, it means that a lot of people believed the lies. Which says more about those who believed such lies than it does about everyone else.
And to put a fine point on it, what more could others have done to disabuse those folks of the lies told them by the Trump campaign? Seriously.
Why is that relevant to GP's point?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I come to HN to discuss stuff with other humans. If I wanted an LLM's (it's not AI, it's a predictive text algorithm) regurgitations, I can generate those myself and don't need "helpful" HNers to do it for me unasked.
When I come here I want to have a discussion with other sentient beings, not the gestalt of training data regurgitated by a bot.
Perhaps that makes me old-fashioned and/or bigoted against interacting with large language models, but that's what I want.
In discussion, I want to know what other sentient beings think, not an aggregation of text tokens based on their probability of being used in a particular sequence determined by the data fed to model.
The former can (but may well not be) a creative, intellectual act by a sentient being. The latter will never be so, as it's an aggregation of existing data/information as a sequence of tokens cobbled together based on the frequency with which such tokens are used in a particular order in the model's corpus.
That's not to say that LLM are useless. They are not. But their place is not in "curious conversation," IMNSHO.
reply