The title of the original article feels like click-baiut to me. It's covering an act of violence under the pretext that people hate AI.
In fact it's a very sad story about a 20 year old throwing their life away instead of fighting for what he believes is right through non-violent activism and/or regulations.
Last year I wrote an article asking the very question "Who will be the next Luddites?", National Geographics followed-up months later. I'm sure many before, after or in-between covered the same topic. There is truth to it, we will be impacted but let's not forget we went through this during the industial revolution and we should be better equipped than ever to fight using meaningful non-violent acts and operations.
Non-violent protests do work, though they require you hit a critical mass to become effective. There even exists a 3.5% rule[1] in political science whereby authoritarian governments will topple if 3.5% of the population engages in nonviolent protest.
One of the more famous examples here in the US is that of the equal rights marches in the 1960s ultimately leading to the end of segregation.
What I'm not sure of, though, is what kind of impact there is on the required percentage of people participating when we have media outlets like Fox News, which was demonstrated to have fabricated images during events like the Black Lives Matter protests to make them look as if they were violent.
While I agree with your basic premise, that 3.5% "rule" is much more of an observed effect than an actual rule.
There needs to be an actual mechanism for the protests to bring about the fall of the authoritarian regime. Unfortunately, in our current context, a lot of the feedback mechanisms that should cause protests to change actual policy and affect the people in power are broken, largely due to the Republicans' efforts over the last several decades to eliminate accountability both from the actual institutions and as a valid concept in our national consciousness.
> There even exists a 3.5% rule[1] in political science whereby authoritarian governments will topple if 3.5% of the population engages in nonviolent protest.
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"[0]
but violence doesnt work either, even if you conquer a whole nation (or social class or insert w/e here), you didnt really win and oneday they will get their revenge, so you're better off trying the non-violent way
Does anyone else see the disconnect between how Americans talk about our history compared to how we talk about political violence of today?
How can we glorify Thomas Jefferson and teach kids about him saying "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" only to then condemn the spilling of any modern blood? Truly what is the difference between torching a warehouse of toilet paper compared to tossing some tea in the harbor?
How can we condemn one and celebrate the other without being hypocrites?
I would absolutely not consider this overreaching if the statement within this thread that "it had referred the user to mental help hotlines multiple times in the past" is true.
That reaches near the fact that a lot of AI is not ready for the enterprise especially when interconnected with other AI agents since it lacks identity and privileged access management.
Perhaps one could establish the laws of "being able to use AI for what it is", for instance, within the boundary of the general public's web interface, not limiting the instances where it successfully advertises itself as "being unable to provide medical advice" or "is prone to or can make mistake", and such, to validating that the person understands by asking them directly and perhaps somewhat obviously indirectly and judging if they're aware that this is a computer you're talking to.
> It's a tragedy. Finding one to blame will be of no help at all.
Agreed with the first part, but holding the designers of those products responsible for the death they've incited will help making sure they put more safeguards around this (and I'm not talking about additional warnings)
We are looking at high-level operant conditioning disguised as standard startup advice. The most fascinating tactical deployment happens at [22:56]—the 'Socratic Trap.' Notice how they advise inducing a micro-stressor (asking the founder why they will fail) to shatter the target's rehearsed 'pitch mask' and force cognitive overload. It’s a textbook elicitation technique to establish a baseline of the founder's true risk tolerance.
Which influence tactic or behavioral shift stood out to you the most in this briefing? Drop your profiling observations below—I’ll be analyzing the best ones.
Why did you copy the same comment you posted on youtube? It feels disingenuous. And idk, the comment kindof just feels like B.S. I guess I should watch the 40 min video before making that conclusion, but I don't want to invest 40 minutes.
It's a pure traffic generation test. Nothing I say not my two accounts answering my initial comment, further down, downvoted is true, pure AI imagination.
The results are good. YC stands strong against BS.
Copy-pasting the comment makes me think that the discussion is less important to them (are they going to check and respond in both places?), and they just want the visibility. Admittedly, this is just how I perceive it, I can also understand somebody thinking “I have something good to say, I’ll say it in multiple places”
You might have a point but I also stand by the point of view of the reply you reply to. It's personal opinion.
In this case, your intuition is right, I threw this around as fast I could to find out if little would go a long way.
It went further than I thought and I appreciate the various views this sparks. Though it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, it's rightly so.
Ah, there it is. I'm starting to feel sorry and only got 30 upvotes.
If it's of interest to anyone, I have not used any alternative means of advertising this YC post other than posting it here and using 2 alt accounts to write the first two replies and two upvotes.
The "Strategic Silence" protocol is a powerful elicitation tool.
It forces the target to either confirm or deny a hypothesis to fill the void.
In order to answer your question about handling visibly intimidated founders, the instruction provided at at the [17:05] timestamp are critical to understanding their methodology.
The speaker advises utilizing "tactical rapport building" disguised as genuine empathy.
Intimidation is actually counter-productive for the advisor initially; it triggers the founder's threat-detection system, causing them to maintain their rehearsed pitch...
To get ground-truth data on operational vulnerabilities, the advisor must first lower the founder's defenses.
By "making them feel comfortable" the advisor calms the target's fight-or-flight response, securing a temporary baseline.
Only then do they apply the Socratic stress-induction, catching the founder off guard and securing an unfiltered look at their psychological resilience.
The video description and comment on YouTube are also obviously AI. The fact that I can't find any clearly human creation or interaction with this on YT or HN is why I'm flagging it.
This is an awesome features for quick development.
I'm sure the documentation of this featureset highlights what I'm about to say but if you're attracted to the simplicity of writing Python projects who are initialized using this method, do not use this code in staging/prod.
If you don't see why this is not production friendly it's for the simple a good.reaaon that creating deployable artifacts packaging a project or a dependency of a project this uses this method, creating reproducible builds becomes impossible.
This will also lead to builds that pass your CI but fail to run in their destination environment and vice versa due to the fact that they download heir dependencies on the fly.
There may be workarounds and I know nothing of this feature so investigate yourself if you must.
Unfortunately the accent on that audio file is strongly US to my ear.
I googled and got “In North-Eastern English dialect, ‘shy bairns get nowt’ is a well-known idiom that essentially translates to ‘shy children get nothing’. Often used to encourage children (or adults) to speak up and have self-confidence”. The original commenter gidorah has a UK email address. https://www.wordsense.eu/shy_bairns_get_nowt/ looked like a reasonable reference.
Edit: here’s it said proper good - skip to 42 minutes: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UaErbstVKAQ Aside: The transcript feature on YouTube is amazing but the UX is soooooo frustrating - the feature doesn’t exist on iPad Safari - and the text is not searchable on YouTube iPad App.
Rejection is not a big deal, and you should just move on.
This is the reason I looked past the rejection argument in my reply below; because there is so much more to gain from sharing than to lose from rejections.
I don't understand why my first reply below is being downvoted. If someone disagrees and downvotes at least drop a note that would make sense. :-)
There's a range of reasons why sharing ideas help foster a positive culture of creativity so if you don't already have a time and place to do so I strongly suggest brainstorming, 10xing, or whichever other method makes this process easy on groups of individuals. It's a lot of fun and we get a lot out of it.
- you never know who might be interested in your idea
- putting your ideas out there helps you to get feedback and improve upon them
- it's an opportunity to practice articulating your ideas to others
- sharing your ideas can inspire others, help in creating a community of support around you and your work (culture++)
- getting your ideas out there can help you to build momentum, gain traction, find allies in your project or business
- sharing your ideas with others they could lead to new opportunities or connections that you never would have otherwise
Looks like you've since been upvoted, but try not to read too much into stuff like this. HN is usually decent on upvoted/downvotes, but honestly sometimes your comment just gets read first by that one random person who doesn't like it, or touches on something that a couple people disagree with. All you can do is move on. As long as you try to keep your commentary constructive, the stray randomly downvotes comment won't affect you much in the long run.
I can’t speak for OP but when I get unexplained/unexpected downvotes I don’t care about it affecting me eg in terms of karma. I care that I’ve contributed something I think is either helpful or at worst innocuous and people haven’t explained what they found wrong with it. I can’t learn anything from that. Usually with a similar appeal for feedback I get what OP has apparently experienced: my original comment levels out, my appeal gets downvoted. To HN’s credit this time, at least there’s been some feedback along with that.
I have another comment about Lord of the Flies downvotes (on the post about the HN parody). I suspect either no one wants to do anything about it, or else they think it's a feature, not a bug. They're dreaming of a world that's long gone.
The received wisdom of the rest of the social network Web is: up/down vote the comment, not the commenter. That doesn't quite solve your problem, but it's a good start.
I didn't downvote but summarizing the article in your second paragraph felt like a chore to read after having read the article, and I did initially skip the rest of the comment (which is good) because of that.
Your first three paragraphs are a précis of the article so at a glance your post seems pointless. I suspect that prompted the down votes. Maybe skip the fluff.
Thanks for the honest feeback. Also shortened my comment considerably to keep it to my thoughts and not the ones expressed in by the author of this article.
Its meant to be that you don't downvote people just because you disagree, but in practise its different.
If I were to downvote (and I don't recollect that I ever have) I hope I would take the time to explain why.
I think your point is good - downvoting because someone is holding an unpopular but considered opinion is bad practise - ultimately it will lead to us here being in even more of an echo chamber than we are already.
However at the end of the day, what's important to me is to feel I've tried doing the right thing.
This means I can't do things conditionally or "only if I trust my manger won't take credit for it". If I want to be credited for my work, I feel that it's mostly my responsibility take credit for it.
It can be very difficult to change people, teams, processes, companies so I understand why we may want to get something out of trying hard to improve things we feel others should want to improve as well. It's not always as obvious as "a salary increase" or "public recognition", but employees who try to improve processes indicates to management they are interested in sharing their input and committed to making things better. This fosters credibility, and creates a more positive work environment.
Job hopping may often be easier but is often seen as a red flag by employers and it can make it difficult to build a strong, long-term career.
What is unfortunate in my opinion is working with developers unwilling to learn more about systems and infrastructure. With the rise of DevOps, it's often the norm that many developers don't know how to do some part of their job. As opposed to your comment this is not on the level of "developer who doesn't know how to code" but "developer who don't know how to work with the underlying systems, builds, deployment processes, and the underlying infrastructure powering their code".
When people are unwilling to learn from others, they are missing out on opportunities to grow and improve. This can lead to a feeling of being stuck in a rut, and can ultimately lead to dissatisfaction with one's job or career; as much for people who lack some expertise and are unwilling to learn, than for those who can help them increase their competence in this closely related field of work, who often end up doing most of the work in this field
"From the testimony of the captured commander of the 36th Marine Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Colonel Dmitry Kormyankov, it turns out that the internet terminals of Elon Musk's Starlink satellite company were delivered to the militants of the Nazi Azov Battalion and the Ukrainian Marines in Mariupol by military helicopters.
According to our information, the delivery of the Starlink Equipment was carried out by the Pentagon.
Elon Musk, thus, is involved in supplying the fascist forces in Ukraine with military communication equipment. And for this, Elon, you will be held accountable like an adult - no matter how much you'll play the fool."
May 9th (tomorrow) is the victory day for Russia (Soviet Union) and every year they celebrate victory with a parade. Considering the situation now, something might happen tomorrow. Keep an eye on the news.
Ah, shit, with Russia’s luck, Putin will try to take out an Elon satellite, miss, and end up starting a Kessler Syndrome collapse of important satellites. Fun.
In fact it's a very sad story about a 20 year old throwing their life away instead of fighting for what he believes is right through non-violent activism and/or regulations.
Last year I wrote an article asking the very question "Who will be the next Luddites?", National Geographics followed-up months later. I'm sure many before, after or in-between covered the same topic. There is truth to it, we will be impacted but let's not forget we went through this during the industial revolution and we should be better equipped than ever to fight using meaningful non-violent acts and operations.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-neo-luddites-more-importa...
http://nationalgeographic.com/history/article/luddite-indust...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism
reply