gchamonlive

Understanding isn't a prerequisite for following the community guidelines. Everyone here is guilty of this, me included to be feeding this pointless discussion, and it's a bit disappointing from the mods not to terminate this thread. Either that or kill the main post. Keeping both up is contradictory.

This is all absurd discussion. If you disagree with the article style, there is a flag button there.

  So it's a sign that the claims in the post likely weren't vetted very hard.

Our time is better used submitting something useful instead of debating meaningless guesswork in the comments.

Everything is low-effort writing if your judgement is ideologically charged. Just read the damn post, it's very good, there's nothing low effort, but you need to read it as one single piece, not dissect it looking for hints of LLMisms, killing the article in the process.

Also if you think LLMisms so bad it's spam, you also don't get a free pass. From the guidelines:

  If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.

  I get the brain scramblies [1] from trying to parse this writing style at work so I hate to see it elsewhere

This sounds to me a lot like mass hysteria, people reading other people's behaviour online and reproducing it unconsciously.

More and more really important and useful information will arrive like this for us to consume. There's no way around. So this is a disservice for newcomers that could come and go unscathed but instead is crippled by these kinds of comments that brings nothing of substance to the table and has the potential to make them hate something they otherwise wouldn't even notice.

Also, from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:

  Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. 

  Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

I felt a bit insulted about the length of the response to be honest. If you don't want fit your answer in a reasonable length you should submit a blog post. I only asked a question, that response is unbefitting and could damn well have been said in fewer words. Just like you chose to be verbose, I chose not to read it.

The community guidelines suggest the answers become more thoughtful and deep, and thus maybe more lengthy, the more we exchange ideas, but that's not what happened. The sudden spike is not justifiable and aggressive regardless of the language sugarcoating it.

Also:

   Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. 

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Breathe in, breathe out, keep at it long after the stress is gone

Yes, software is supposed to be convenient, making user's life miserable is proprietary software's job

  manifest self vs. non-self

This brings so much assumptions to the table... The duality split, the thing in and of itself... What if the self and the non-self only manifest when the subject has intestines? Can we disprove this?

The substrate problem is far from solved.

  At the end of the day, however, the judge of a model's happiness is itself

Exactly, and since we're talking about a thinking stone, human happiness and suffering is in oneself, not in the machine, at least not until we solve the problem of the substrate in consciousness philosophy

The question changes then from assuming enslaving to whether they actually suffer, which is philosophical progress, and to which I'd say it's far fetched to assume human suffering which depends a whole lot on whether or not the subject has intestines

Usually when it's misunderstood

Maybe other people did, they just chose to talk about something slightly off topic.

There is nothing in the community guidelines about having to stay on topic and to only talk about what's on the article.

There is however:

  Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. 

  Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What if AIs were in fact more akin to Meeseeks'es? Happy to exist, happier to rest.

Remember you must imagine sisyphus happy eventually.

Thanks for reminding me not to buy American anymore

https://xd1.dev/2025/09/not-buying-american-anymore

That totally ignores the act of creation just for the sake of it, sheer creativity, pure unproductivity that breeds new kinds of attention.

This idea of the need and compete for scarce resources is important only when resources are scarce. In art, love and caring there is no end to it, so the possibilities are unlimited, categorically, because you aren't looking at a bounded infinitude.

How many ways to represent reality are there between 0 and 1?

It's good for everyone but the community, unless I'm looking at it wrong

What's the business logic behind buying and sunsetting?

No, it's because if I said "outlaw donation" it could mean I was arguing just for the financial side of the "opinion", leaving companies free to invest in ads or propaganda as an indirect form of expressing opinion

it was unclear because of snark

and what about the rest of the discussion?

I'm not arguing anything, I'm questioning

Sure, there's always the middle ground, but there's always the extreme, people abusing amfetamines because a regular human being isn't made to work 12 hours a day 7 days a week, or because after the third pill it's not kicking anymore.

And people should drop the cynicism that just because there are doctors around everyone is well cared for. Just look at the opioid crisis in the US, fuelled by respectable doctors chasing financial incentives.

I'm counting on it, I find it deliciously ironic how much there's little interest here in the actual wellbeing of people. The logical hoops people go through here is hilarious.

So it isn't roughly zero, and this minority is what's being discussed here.

> Any psychiatrist worth a damn already considers these things.

Protocols however are always changing depending on new findings. Not saying this is the case, but not considering something unknown at the time doesn't make a doctor not worth a damn.

> Your assertion that people need "more sun" and "regular sleep" could very well be true, yet someone can still have ADHD.

if that was the case the treatment wouldn't be unecessary, like I specifically wrote in the comment you are replying to.

ADHD treats with Lisdexamfetamine. Amfetamines, I repeat. People use this to study, to get high at parties, to be functional at work, so I really doubt there aren't patients out there abusing these drugs with valid prescriptions.

Another way to look at this is how many people need more sun and regular sleep and instead are doing unnecessary treatments?

  I don't care about clicking into the terminal. I don't understand why people do this more and more.

  You just need to use your keyboard shortcuts correctly and navigate the tmux/kitty session as it's intended to.

See that's all a matter of workflow? You don't understand it because it's just not for you

VC money is weird. It can come from private individuals, from loans with extremely low interest, from private funds...

The thing is normally it's money that's intended to be burned in the search of a unicorn, cheap money, so there's no real "risk" there.

Since we're talking about stone age tech, would mammoth pelt offer good insulation?