undefined | Better HN

0 pointsswatcoder3y ago0 comments

Some of us respond to uses that align with the technology’s strengths with excitement and encouragement, and to uses that rely on its weaknesses with criticism and warning.

That seems useful, prudent, and completely in line with the spirit if a community like HN.

There’s no more reason that every critique should come with a “proposal” than that every cheer should come with some kind of admonition. As a community, multiple points of view are expressed and developed simultaneously.

Of course, some of points of view might personally frustrate you or leave you feeling like you don’t know how to respond to them. But is that so bad? Does it need to be squelched just because you don’t enjoy it?

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

newswasboring3y ago

I think you hit the nail on the head, it does frustrate me. Not only because it's repeated often, but also because it's applied equally everywhere. Look at this project for example. It's an extension for arXiv, a pre print repository for cutting edge research, do we really need to keep the entirety of humanity in mind while making this? Because that's what the original comment was saying. The way I see it, arXiv is mostly looked at by experts who would know when something is completely off, and will probably look into things further than reading the GPT summary. If I was still actively doing research and hitting the site every day, this would have immensely streamlined my flow (maybe with a few tweaks to the prompt to emphasize certain sections which I'm usually more interested in).

But that's not how any of this is discussed. That's where my scope comment comes from, the scope of every project cannot be "for everyone and 100% safe from the beginning". In this way there is no encouragement to discuss/make better things, just discouragement. I, personally, hate this.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse