As anyone can see, there are plenty of criticisms of Brockman and OpenAI in this very thread (some of them even reference the very thing you referenced), as there are in many other HN threads all the time. We have no problem with that.
The problem with your particular comment is the caricatured/mocking portrayal of it and the mike-drop/this-explains-everything energy to it, which you explicitly invoked in your reply to me.
Any time you assert that a single quote from a long time ago explains everything about a person or event, you’re on weak ground on HN. The truth is never that simple, no matter who it’s about, and the guidelines explicitly ask us to avoid snark and shallow dismissals, because HN’s entire purpose is to host discussions that are better than that.
> Any time you assert that a single quote from a long time ago
Not my main point, but his quote was timely enough that it was used as an exhibit in a major trial only a few weeks ago. Suggesting that it reflects unfairly or inaccurately on his current views has no evidentiary basis.
My main point: I routinely see 'snarky' one liners on this website. Go find literally any thread involving Israel or something deemed 'fascist' by the hivemind and you'll find them by the dozens, many of which are heavily upvoted given that they appear at the top; meanwhile, legitimate (in the sense that they have clearly been thought-out at length and present a position that is at least prima facie logically defensible) comments that go against the groupthink are invariably flagged.
I mean honestly - you guys do know you have a major problem with the way flagging comments works, right? If you earnestly want to deal with snarky comments and foment deeper conversation, that's a laudable goal but what you have currently is a particular demographic of left-leaning social democrat types that dominate this website that flags every comment they disagree with, whether it's 'snarky' or not. I've seen it with my own comments and I've done it to others because hey, I'll play the game if you guys set it up that way (and no doubt if the website had predominantly far right users it would be the obverse of the same problem). I'm not saying left-wing people are the only problem, just that on this site that's the way the demographics are.
So, this comment is partly irrelevant (about Brockman), and partly a whataboutism, but my point about flagging stands and if you are serious about the level of discourse here you guys really (truly) ought to think seriously about how to deal with it, because I've had plenty of comments that took genuine time and effort to think about and write, considered and acknowledged and addressed opposing viewpoints, and were nevertheless flagged and removed because I wasn't on the anti-Israel bandwagon or whatever the topic was. So why bother investing time into writing a comment that is just going to get flagged anyway? I may as well be snarky given that it takes .01% of the effort and time if it's going to be flagged anyway.
The site's flagging system in its current iteration incentivises being snarky.
The “quote” you cited was not a quote. It was a caricature of a quote. That’s the entire thing I’m objecting to, because that is clearly against the guidelines.
Everything else you’re writing is irrelevant to this point.
If you want to have a serious discussion about appropriate conduct on this site, you first need to start by showing you’re willing to respect the site and the guidelines.
The problem with your particular comment is the caricatured/mocking portrayal of it and the mike-drop/this-explains-everything energy to it, which you explicitly invoked in your reply to me.
Any time you assert that a single quote from a long time ago explains everything about a person or event, you’re on weak ground on HN. The truth is never that simple, no matter who it’s about, and the guidelines explicitly ask us to avoid snark and shallow dismissals, because HN’s entire purpose is to host discussions that are better than that.