Hacker News Reader

Comment by exe34 | Hacker News Reader

> What makes you think that persuasion isn't capped at some lower level than world-ending?

People can be persuaded to kill themselves (see koolaid). People can be persuaded that arbitrary others are evil and must be exterminated (see Hitler). People can be convinced that dying for the cause is worth it (see 9/11 or kamikaze). People can believe that bringing about the end of the world would cause them to be saved into heaven (see Christian Zionism).

Why do you think it would be hard to convince any of these people to do something really stupid?

In fact, people don't even need to want to cause destruction to do something dumb - "I'm trying to save the world with free bio-fuel, help me create this bacteria" ("and I'm very smart, smarter than Elon Musk") - boom, pandemic.

It takes only one person to fall for it.

View on HN

> People can be persuaded that arbitrary others are evil and must be exterminated (see Hitler)

If you are suggesting Hitler was persuaded that the Jews were evil, I don’t think that’s correct, he grew up in an environment where many people did believe that but they did not need to be persuaded, just like they did not have to be persuaded into their religion, culture etc. They just accepted the idea without much thought, which does not equate persuasion.

If you are saying the Allies were persuaded that Hitler was evil and must die, I think that may be closer to the truth since they knew the cost of invading Germany would be astronomical, potentially costing their own destruction, and they still stopped only when Hitler was taken, dead or alive. Some serious persuasion was needed for that.

> They just accepted the idea without much thought, which does not equate persuasion.

The first half of your sentence sounds like really swift and effective persuasion, to me.

>If you are suggesting Hitler was persuaded that the Jews were evil, I don’t think that’s correct, he grew up in an environment where many people did believe that but they did not need to be persuaded, just like they did not have to be persuaded into their religion, culture etc. They just accepted the idea without much thought, which does not equate persuasion.

That's a bizarre take.

Of course tens fmillions needed to be persuaded, and the Nazis did a lot of propaganda, even calling that openly, false flag operations, and similar things, and of course there was decades of pamphlets, speeches etc before the Nazis even existed. Antisemitism didn't just grow on trees.

You find it bizarre that people are born into a culture and accept much of it without the need to be persuaded. Have you been to a country with a very different culture than yours? That normally opens our eyes to just how much we take for granted is just cultural, and other people would strongly disagree with even your deepest held belief.

SNobody said otherwise, but that's not applicable here.

We're not talking about general customs or viewpoints a people has as part of their culture.

We're talking about a specific political program developed and propagandized in the span of slightly over a decade. Nazism wasn't merely "the general culture" of Germany since always, nor was "kill all Jews".

And yet AI can't write decent landing page copy, or even a convincing cover letter. Seeing the obtuse "reasoning" from Claude daily, I'm very un-worried about AI being a world-ending persuasion engine.

You only spot the ones that aren't convincing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com