Hacker News Reader

Comment by tony_cannistra | Hacker News Reader

I'm the op on this one (not the author). Gotta say, I had higher hopes for the community here.

Isn't it worthwhile to examine our patterns of thinking and work? Shouldn't alternative perspectives such as these spark conversation, rather than sly jibes?

HN grew from curiosity and good-faith. Y'all are not showing up.

View on HN

Speaking personally I was not particularly moved by the article because I have seen the same thing, in different shapes, thousands of times on HN and elsewhere. Really, AI can't feel and therefore it is inferior? Never heard that one before. Really, an AI can't feel friction and therefore can't adapt to it? Daring today, aren't we? (And a more interesting question: is that even true..?) I realize I am being unnecessarily harsh here, but this article is very much preaching to the choir on HN, which has an anti-AI bent. No one is showing up because there's nothing really to show up to here -- and that is why you are left with "sly jibes" and not much else.

Look, really not trying to get into the weeds here, but since we're there: I respect your take that nothing in this article is novel, though I disagree with it.

My point wasn't as much about that as it was the lack of good faith engagement and curiosity.

Not interesting? Let the damn thing die on /new.

The article does not engage with its subject matter with good-faith engagement and curiosity. "Always has been. Always will be." is, inherently, the author's lack of engagement with the subject matter. "They cannot see the world outside" is a shut door that does not admit curiosity or an interesting comment. And so you are seeing this reflected back in the response.

There has been plenty of good faith ruined by trolls on both sides of the discussion. The vast majority of which are new accounts. HN seems to have been under attack for years now.

More generally, the AI discussions that HN regulars actually want to have are going to be limited to the business plans, press releases about new models, and the (very) occasional higher quality project that couldn't have been done without a big lift from an LLM.

Anyone genuinely wanting to discuss the truth from a philosophical or scientific perspective is never going to penetrate the profound ignorance on much of the business side (mostly startups and aging leadership), so why bother? Business is at least what everyone has in common here.

It’s bizarre to me to hear that HN has an anti-AI bent.

This is the place I see AI discussed the most. Admittedly the opinions here are mixed. A lot of people do have negative feelings but there are also a ton of pro-AI comments. There Are huge 600 comment threads about a new model release, weird rants about “Gastown”, constant “Launch HNs” for model wrappers, and people saying writing code by hand is archaic.

This is one of the most pro-AI places I spend time. The other websites I frequent are much more anti-AI and my experience in real life is that most people don’t like what AI is doing to the world (even if they grudgingly find it useful at work.)

Do you really think threads like [1], [2], [3] are pro-AI? I literally just selected three at random from today's feed. I think the only positive threads about AI here are typically new model releases.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48923079 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48921461 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48926590

The last one isn’t negative because of AI but because of grok/elon.

Sure and OpenAI articles aren’t negative because of Sam Altman, Anthropic articles aren’t negative because of Dario etc…

They could be. But you’re delusional if you think people don’t shit on grok because of the association to Elon. Or it’s just a shitty model, who knows.

Five of the top eleven posts right now are about AI:

1. Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model [https://thinkingmachines.ai/news/introducing-inkling/]

2. High-Bandwidth Flash offers efficient storage for model weights [https://spectrum.ieee.org/high-bandwidth-flash]

3. Grok Build is open source [https://github.com/xai-org/grok-build]

4. Governments, companies, nonprofits should invest in free, open source AI [pdf] [https://www.siegelendowment.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/f...]

5. An Interactive Map of AI [https://artifipedia.com/map]

I would only say the discussion on #3 is particularly negative and as others mentioned Grok has a lot of its own baggage: Elon Musk, recently uploading home directories without asking, making sexual imagery of minors, etc. (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/22/grok-ai-g...)

---

So a little less than half of the top 10 stories are about AI and only 1 is negative but that one potentially has other factors at play.

Contrast this to how the general public feels about AI:

"A majority of registered voters, 57%, said they believe the risks of AI outweigh its benefits, compared with 34% who said the opposite. What’s more, a plurality of voters view AI negatively ... Just 26% of voters say they have positive feelings about AI, compared with 46% who hold negative views. In fact, the only topics with a lower net positive rating than AI in the NBC News survey were the Democratic Party and Iran."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-majority...

---

Given all that, I would say HN has a more pro-AI bias than the general population. Do you disagree?

I don't like what AI is doing to the world and the tools it puts into the hands of those who would make the world a worse place, but I don't have my head in the sand about the inevitability of what is about to happen in a lot of fields, for better or worse.

Companies will see it as a way to make more for less, they will lay off many people, not realising, as Henry Ford did, that to make money you need to pay your workers, so they can buy products.

What the end state will be is very unclear right now, could be bladerunner, could be star trek, could be 1984. Could be terminator.

We will just have to wait and see.

> could be bladerunner, could be star trek, could be 1984. Could be terminator.

It's a profound moment for sure, but let's ask ourselves: could the creative works of early last century have predicted our world? Would people in the 1930s say "2030, it could be like Metropolis, could be like 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, could be like Flash Gordon"? No.

The real future might be nothing like any of the sci-fi movies we're so used to representing potential AI-based futures.

One thing I've been trying to remind myself about is that humans have explored only a very narrow slice of possibilities within the known universe. AI's ability to crawl the search space is going to uncover way more slices, (which yes, could lead to various outcomes like the movies listed), but more likely to be some hybrid/blend of outcomes (or entirely new outcomes) that we haven't imagined yet at all.

"May you live in interesting times" and all that

Those shows are just shorthand for 'utopian future with no need for money', 'distopian future where corporations have control', 'distopian future where machines have control', 'distopian future where the government have control' etc

Plainly, the precise future we get will be as unlike the films as our current situation is like Metropolis (robot girlfriends, skyscrapers, drones/flying transport) but the specifics are very much different.

We certainly do live in interesting times. Would be nice for them to get a bit less interesting IMO.

> It’s bizarre to me to hear that HN has an anti-AI bent.

IMHO, it's a solid 50:50. The threads about new models and whatnot will be filled by hypers, the threads detailing the social and economic consequences (or the newest scandal of major protagonists) with doomers and haters.

Yeah that seems about right to me.

And that seems fairly balanced. Especially considering polling says more people are worried about AI than excited in the general population

> HN, which has an anti-AI bent

In what world are you living? 90% of the front page is AI.

I imagine everyone has a point at which they feel a movement has pushed its rhetoric just that bit too far. When one takes a lofty and high-minded position, one can find oneself exposed to ridicule.

In case it helps the authentic human connection: I too wrote this with my human hands and did not use AI.

it's funny when a site posted on a tech board goes down from traffic. it's funnier when the site is making some kind of principled stance about the power of handmade tools, which presumably made the site, which went down.

Please don't write in this petty way on HN.

Everyone knows that AI would never build a tool that would cap bandwidth based on how much a user is paying for hosting. Famously anthropic charges you the same amount for claude usage regardless of how many tokens you use, extending towards infinity.

The hacker intelligentsia is long gone from this site. It’s little more than a VC/tech merc mixer.

I recently mentioned that my team and most of my dev friends don’t use AI for code on a gamdev forum (we do stuff like distributed consensus, compilers, etc.). I was quickly denounced as “an arrogant douche”.

I think the eye roll is the need to shout that you don’t use AI.

It’s the new web dev, imo.

This post wasn’t about sparking conversation. It’s about using AI makes me lose the human touch in what I do, blah blah, heard it all before.

Sorry, not sorry.

TFA raises several points I hadn't heard before. Here's one.

The artifacts we produce define our culture. If we allow LLMs to produce our work, our culture represents that which they understand. But LLMs can't be trained on the entirety of the human experience. "How dare we abandon so many countless traditions and people and ideas and nuances, simply because they are underrepresented in the training data?"

I just feel like that's not performative in the way you're insinuating. That feels like a take to me. Respectful engagement is what I expected here.

But that's not anything new, and even in the same text you can see examples of that.

LLMs are a tool. The brush is a tool, the pencil is a tool. The way we write already is defined by tools. This very comment is remarkably defined by its medium, I can't control its font size! Or the font at all, for that matter, nor the color, hell I can't even control how and where this comment is read! This means I'm generally going to write it in English, a whole different language from my native one! How is that for "defining"???

None of this is new, it's all dictated by human experience in the very same way that the output of a LLM gets dictated by human experience. That's the way memes (as in, anthropology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme?) work.

LLMs don't understand, they just output based on some parameters. We've been here before.

The LLM is the next generation of 20th century culture. Until the early 20th century, all stories (from before homer to Shakespeare, through Dickens and so on), music etc we continual remix and interpretation. But as recording became possible and then film, cultural elements mixed with law adopted expensive production and started to become more locked down. Corporations (which are just machines themselves) made musical acts whose members were just actors playing a role (still happens today with K-pop being the most successful). Disney colonized the public domain and drowned out the origins, with their versions becoming canonical

But consumers were willing participants. Rather than make a costume of your favorite character people now preferentially seek out licensed versions of dolls, costumes, “official” soundtracks etc rather than treating it all as just more raw material for your own imagination.

I’m not saying there isn’t fanfic and remix culture as well but when was the last time you saw a kid with a home-made “character” T-shirt? They even buy sport jerseys with the ads included!

So the mechanical slop infiltrating culture is just the current apotheosis of this process atrophy of the imagination. Truly it is degenerative AI

It is one of the biggest things to ever happen in the history of software, art, and writing. We're nowhere near the "it's meaningless to talk about why you don't like it" threshold.

>We're nowhere near the "it's meaningless to talk about why you don't like it" threshold.

We crossed that threshold at least a year ago.

we're so near and literally beyond that threshold

Reply on news.ycombinator.com