Hacker News Reader

Comment by gwbas1c | Hacker News Reader

> To be fair, many or even most sites on the Google Safe Browsing blacklist are probably unworthy. But I’m pretty sure this was not the first false positive.

The bigger issue is that the internet needs governance. And, in the absence of regulation, someone has stepped in and done it in a way that the author didn't like.

Perhaps we could start by requiring that Google provide ways to contact a living, breathing human. (Not an AI bot that they claim is equivalent.)

View on HN

why do you assume that the living, breathing human hired by theGoogs will be competent at handling all of the crazy that will be flung at them by the living, breathing human on the other end of the line. One single person cannot handle that. Naturally, you need a team of living, breathing humans. You might even have them in triage level groups like level 1 support, level 2 support and so on where each level is a more trained/experienced living, breathing human. Eventually, you'll have an entire department of people of varying degrees of skill. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, I thought it was the year 2000.

Hopefully, this helps you understand why your living, breathing human is such a farcical idea for theGoogs to consider.

Well, Google did self-appoint itself the "internet police," and the general job of the police is to deal with screwballs.

So you can't take one part of the responsibility and abdicate the other part!

Playing devil's advocate, who else was going to step into that role? Who would have the clout to be trusted? The Googs would want to do something just as a self protecting action that evolved into a self aggrandizing sense of empowerment that they might not be the protector we need but the one we deserved

You really think talking to a human and a bot is the same?

I don't even know what you're asking, or how that's the question you ask from my comment. Clearly, no, I don't think a human and a bot are the same. I'm saying that evilCorp is not going to pay for a human support staff in the year 2025 when the company is pushing it's AI/LLM chatbot as a major part of who they are. If the chatbot company doesn't use its own chatbot, why would anyone else? Of course they are not going to pay for humans.

How does any of that lead to your asking if I think humans === bots?

That may be, and we certainly don't need anyone explaining Google's position - we already know what that is. Nobody here actually cares what Google wants, we're expressing what we want. Nerds have helped Google enough with free marketing and goodwill, Google's reputation being tarnished can only help us not hurt us.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com