Comment by weird-eye-issue | Hacker News Reader

Comment by weird-eye-issue | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

weird-eye-issue

I agree that there are some websites that it will send the email address and that Anthropic never should have put the email address in the prompt in the first place. I mean I can understand why they did it but it still seems pretty stupid to me. It's kind of like hardcoding API keys in your codebase, it saves a few minutes of time but is obviously not a good practice.

> I am sick and tired of the relentless grifting that's overtaking the software industry.

It's only going to get worse especially depending on your definition of grifting in this context. I've been doing this for a long time but these days I don't even write code. I have AI write the code, monitoring the logs, and suggesting PRs. Our users are happy, I'm happy, and we get features out very quickly without any sort of uptick in bugs. Some people consider that grifting but others will just see it as the current state of development. By the way that's the way that things will become more and more over time. It's scary how good AI is at things these days. I was testing it on 3D modeling with Blender yesterday and was blown away.

See, this is the issue. Companies like Anthropic are relentlessly hyping and pressuring everyone to inject their tech everywhere, without any care for the consequences. This privacy violation isn't an isolated incident. This is the usual Silicon Valley playbook, and the reckless way and speed in which it's being pushed out now is already causing damage.

If that wasn't bad enough, they're stealing and depriving everyone of critical resources like RAM, electricity, natural resources [1], public land, and taxpayer money.

All this for what exactly? Most of this isn't based at all on current demand, but rather the idea that they can make much better use of resources in the future than the people that actually need them right now. Yet, cheerleaders at HN downplay or deny that anything bad is going on.

This is the grifting. They're selling hypothetical demand while robbing everyone else of the actual resources that we all rely on. These companies are acting like the scammers at Wall Street who caused the 2008 financial crisis, except that the scale and scope of the harm is so much worse.

Your argument is akin to the scammers cheering for themselves in the lead-up to the financial crisis. "See? We're making it possible for people to afford homes, but you ungrateful people are calling affordable housing grifting."

That's gross.

Even the Wall Street scammers didn't publicly display this level of arrogance. Because at least, the superficial benefit was affordable housing, not the joy of rich assholes being able to play with their shiny new toy.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2026/...

> They're selling hypothetical demand

Sorry, I don't understand what is the "hypothetical demand" you identified in my comment you replied to? There is real demand for AI. I use it daily for years and my usage has only been increasing as its become more competent and I've learned how to use it better. If you think that is BS and its all hypothetical, you quite simply just don't know what you are talking about.

> Your argument is akin to the Wall Street scammers cheering for themselves in the lead-up to the financial crisis. "See? We're making it possible for people to afford homes, but you ungrateful people are calling affordable housing grifting."

What argument are you referring to? Can you specifically quote what you are talking about that I said because I don't understand. Just seems like you wanted to find a way to bring this back to a previous bubble and call me a scammer simply for not being anti-AI.

So ignore, deny, downplay it is. Reading the comments here sure is a quick way to drive sane people to depression.

Okay great argument. Change happens, go to your therapist if you need to.

You really proved my point about how you people regard anything that puts LLMs in a negative light as an attack on yourselves. As long as you get to play with your shiny new toy, you're fine, or even cheer for, the fact that a handful of tech billionaires are funneling billions into our political systems, seizing and hoarding finite resources all for themselves, and doing a pump and dump on the global economy in order to do so. And the rest of the world is supposed to be thanking you for that. It's a cult.

But I agree with you on one point. Voters demanded change, and it's not in favor of the enablers who think any of the above is okay. And childish behavior like trying to call people mentally ill without getting flagged will not buy you any sympathy.

I tried to have a real discussion with you but you wouldn't even attempt that in good faith. I asked you to clarify your points and you totally ignored me. It's like you are talking to somebody else. Now you are suddenly bringing politics into this like a literal bot.

This isn't something US politics can just put back in the bottle and you are naive for thinking this. If it gets heavily regulated in the US it won't be long before everyone is just using Chinese models. And then what? Will we ban Chinese models? That strategy and approach didn't work so well with semiconductors back in the day.

Also I didn't bring up mental illness first, hope you're doing fine.

> I tried to have a real discussion with you but you wouldn't even attempt that in good faith. I asked you to clarify your points and you totally ignored me.

Why is every accusation a confession with you people? I clarified multiple times what the issue is, and every single time you've either ignored, denied, or downplayed. You pretend that the people being robbed of resources are just "resisting change," and are now even calling us "literal bots." If that's how you view people, no wonder you think it's "bad faith" to oppose the multi-trillion dollar levels of exploitation that's going on.

> Also I didn't bring up mental illness first

What I said was that unempathetic people are driving others mad. Very disingenuous of you to frame that as me inviting you to call me mentally ill. You have nothing but your own free will to blame for making that insult, and a responsible adult owns their decisions.

All of this highlights the lack of empathy even further.

> hope you're doing fine.

And you did it again. Calling people ill in a sarcastic way is your idea of a "real discussion"? No, that's petty and childish.

Go back and look at our discussion.

I asked you very specific questions because I genuinely was trying to understand what points you were making and what argument you thought I was trying to make and you never addressed those very specific questions. If I ask you specific questions and then you completely ignore them that isn't really going to lead to a productive conversation. You are just letting emotion control you and you are justifying it by assuming that you are more empathetic than me which frankly isn't even relevant.

Another issue that makes having a discussion with you impossible is that you keep using the plural form of words like "you people" and "are now even calling us...". I am a singular person talking to you another singular person. Stop trying to put myself and yourself into buckets and extrapolate this conversation into things I never said just because people that you might think are similar to me have said in the past. I was calling you a literal bot for bringing up politics out of nowhere. I'm not talking about "you people" or anyone else, or any other situation, I'm only talking about you in that specific context. Stop extrapolating everything and putting words in my mouth. It's exhausting and even trying to have a conversation with you is simply not happening so I'm not going to reply further.

I already read your reply. You didn't just ask a question. You asked a rhetorical question. Very different things.

> Sorry, I don't understand what is the "hypothetical demand" you identified in my comment you replied to? ... If you think that is BS and its all hypothetical, you quite simply just don't know what you are talking about.

"You quite simply just don't know what you are talking about" is not a question. It's denial of a very real issue. It's no secret that Anthropic and co. are currently depriving others of resources based on speculative future demand. It's not current demand that's already being served. It's future demand. And they're threatening human extinction if they don't have their way. How much imaginary future demand justifies such deprivation? At that point, who is all of this even for?

Or by "question," are you referring to this:

> Just seems like you wanted to find a way to bring this back to a previous bubble and call me a scammer simply for not being anti-AI.

The exact same straw man rephrased, also not a question.

> You are just letting emotion control you

Says the person repeatedly calling people mental.

> I was calling you a literal bot for bringing up politics out of nowhere

The insane amount of resources being allocated to LLM datacenters was one of the deciding factors in the outcome of the election. People wanted change, the precise thing you accused me of being against. You invited that discussion.

Furthermore, you call me a "bot" for bringing up this point, saying it's "irrelevant." Calling that dismissal of human suffering for what it is isn't "extrapolation."

I clarified what the grift is in every single one of my replies, and you refuse to even acknowledge the issue of resource deprivation and instead made it about being pro-progress or anti-progress. Don't pretend like that's a good-faith discussion.

You need help.

By questions I was referring to my sentences that ended with a question mark that you ignored several comments back. None of them were rhetorical. I like that you are selectively quoting statements I made and saying they aren't questions. No shit. My questions were questions. That is why there are question marks. Maybe you can ask Claude to identify them for you.

AI companies can barely meet current demand. I don't know why you think all the demand is hypothetical but that's on you. You'd have to have your head in the sand to think this. They are collectively processing hundreds of billions of tokens per minute if you bothered to research it. That's not future demand, that's current.

Good luck, you'll need it.

Since you clearly don’t know what a rhetorical question is, I’ll help you out. Putting a question mark at the end of a sentence doesn’t make it a sincere question. If you’ve answered a question all by yourself right after “asking,” it’s without doubt a rhetorical question. Turns out Claude didn’t help you be correct here, just like when you mocked another commenter for using a totally legit English word.

Also, you think you need Claude to do ctrl-f? No wonder you have such a visceral reaction to the idea of placing limits on LLM resource usage. And that, by the way, is a rhetorical question, even though I put a question mark on it.

You appear to suffer from a cognitive dissonance so severe that you’re no longer able to comprehend the concept of time or numbers. Or even the difference between all and some.

Much of the resources being seized by these companies aren’t being used to serve live requests yet. Your claim that it’s serving current demand is a logical impossibility. It’s future demand.

And you refuse to even contemplate this at all, but what on earth justifies depriving people of resources they need to live? People being denied access to everything from RAM, electricity, natural resources, land, and money has consequences. But the only thing you’ve shown care for is the interest of LLM providers. You lash out against any criticism of their actions by calling people mental over and over.

You need a good hard look at yourself in the mirror, because that behavior is what most people would consider abhorrent. Consider this before you post the same insult again.

> It’s future demand.

Exactly. You made my point. Thank you!

> And you refuse to even contemplate this at all, but what on earth justifies depriving people of resources they need to live?

Hyperbole strawman alarmist BS.

> Consider this before you post the same insult again.

I didn't insult your poor mental health. I just pointed out you should seek help.

> Exactly. You made my point. Thank you!

You win! By ignoring, denying, and downplaying everything that contradicts you. This is just pathetic.

> Hyperbole strawman alarmist BS.

Then why were you so reluctant to say that much earlier on? Because even under heavy cognitive dissonance, you instinctively understood that this topic is too well documented that it makes you look out of touch. Like, tell me where I can get affordable RAM right now?

> I didn't insult your poor mental health. I just pointed out you should seek help.

It's a sign of immaturity to call people mental over and over. And saying "I didn't use those exact words" makes it all the more so. Everybody that I grew up with stopped doing that by the time they got to high school. At least stop doing that to yourself, for your own sake.

> Like, tell me where I can get affordable RAM right now?

It's supply and demand. Would you prefer communism or some sort of market intervention? (That is not a rhetorical question by the way, I know that confuses you.) I'm not sure what you are even suggesting. Yeah I don't like that RAM is more expensive either but... You just have to deal with it for now. I'm sorry your MacBook was $200 more than usual.

> It's a sign of immaturity to call people mental over and over.

First of all I never called you mental and second of all you are the one who brought up depression first. It seemed like you were struggling.

> Would you prefer communism or some sort of market intervention?

Put proper regulations in place. Enforce monopoly laws. Don't let a few companies single-handedly monopolize limited resources. Imprison people who commit financial fraud. I know a certain group of people attribute everything to communism, but these are prerequisites for a functioning market, which capitalism depends on. If anything, it's crony capitalism that's much more aligned with the communist bogeyman.

> I'm sorry your MacBook was $200 more than usual.

RAM costing more isn't simply an issue of you or me having to shell out an additional $200 for a spare MacBook. Almost every aspect of modern life depends on RAM, from telecommunications and distribution of goods, to public health. Every price hike is a deadly squeeze on people living from paycheck to paycheck.

> That is not a rhetorical question by the way, I know that confuses you.

"Oh, you're confused." Sigh.

> First of all I never called you mental and second of all you are the one who brought up depression first. It seemed like you were struggling.

You seriously need to be told the second time that saying something is "depressing" isn't an admission of mental illness, nor is it an invitation for you to repeatedly tell me to "get help," a well-known ableist insult? Despite me telling you in literally every single one of my latest replies that it's unacceptable? Most people don't ever need to be told this even once, and you're embarrassing yourself. Grow up.

> Enforce monopoly laws.

None of the AI companies are monopolies

> Don't let a few companies single-handedly monopolize limited resources.

So you think the government needs to tell these memory companies who they can sell to? Do you want the government to nationalize the memory factories which aren't even in the US? Talk about crony capitalism.

> I know a certain group of people

You really just can't help yourself lol

> nor is it an invitation for you to repeatedly tell me to "get help," a well-known ableist insult?

You seem very sensitive to this so I won't bring it up again. I've been to therapy on a couple of occasions in the past before and there's nothing wrong with it so I didn't mean anything negative by it. I actually thought it was a bit rude how you used the word "mental" almost like a slur a few times but whatever, my bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com