We've replaced the baity generic title with the slightly less baity, but at least specific, subtitle.
(This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.)
replies(2):
(This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.)
> is it simply the case that we can't be outwardly critical of AI itself at all anymore
You need only, er, delve into any large HN thread about AI to see that this is very far from the case! especially the more generic threads about opinion pieces and so on.
I think the air on HN is too cynical and curmudgeonly towards new tech right now, and that worries me. Not that healthy skepticism is unwarranted (it's fine of course) but for HN itself to be healthy, there ought to be more of a balance. Cranky comments about "slop"* ought not to be the main staple here—what we want is curious conversation about interesting things—but right now it's not only the main staple, I feel like we're eating it for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
But I'm not immune from the bias I'm forever pointing out to other people (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43134194), and that's probably why we have opposite perceptions of this!
* (yes it annoys me too, that's not my point here though)
But regardless, its not really important for me to understand, and this place has been here way before me, and will perhaps be here way after! For me personally, its at least enlightening to know this is the official stance and will help me adjust my future participation! Thanks for the time.
If these commenters were arriving at their naysaying through curious exploration, that would be fine, but in that case we'd see indications of this in the comments—they would be lighter and more playful, would contain interesting details, and so on. This is unfortunately pretty rare among the naysayers. What I'm seeing instead is a lot of cranky curmudgeonism. Cranky curmudgeonism is a different internet game than the one we want HN to be playing.
But here, I think I can fill out your response: while the post itself is not reflexive curmudgeonism, the original headline itself would arguably encourage it in the comments, and that is something that falls under the purview of the guidelines, and gives reason for mods to editorialize. Submitters and authors and commenters must not only care about the content itself, but how it might be perceived at the surface (what the bait is), but only insofar as this fosters productive/curious conversation.
While I am still a little haunted by certain counterfactuals one could formulate in this case, and notwithstanding the one big elephant in the room I won't even bring up, this can check out for me and I get it and thanks. Again, its just good to know where HN stands, and I personally have benefited some from this reality check about the state of things for the site from your point of view.