Remix clone Hacker News

Because "rant" is irrational, and the author wants to be seen as staking out a rational opposition.

Of course, every ranter wants to be seen that way, and so a protest that something isn't a rant against X is generally a sign that it absolutely is a rant against X that the author is pre-emptively defending.

▲

voxl 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've rarely read a rant that didn't consist of some good logical points

▲

20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

croes 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Doesn‘t mean listing logical points makes it a rant

▲

throwaway290 18 hours ago | parent [-]

If logical points are all against sth that is debatable then it's a rant. They can be good points tho.

	▲	croes 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		• Instead of forming hypotheses, users asked the AI for ideas. • Instead of validating sources, they assumed the AI had already done so. • Instead of assessing multiple perspectives, they integrated and edited the AI’s summary and moved on. These are point against certain actions with a tool not against the tool. AI is for the starting point not the final result. AI must never be the last step but it often is because people trust computers especially if they answer in a confident language. It's the ELIZA effect all over again.

▲

YetAnotherNick 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The classic hallmark of rant is picking some study, not reading the methodology etc and making wild conclusion on it. For example for a study it says:

> The study revealed a clear pattern: the more confidence users had in the AI, the less they thought critically

And the study didn't even checked that. They just plotted the correlation between how much user think they rely on AI vs how much effort they think they saved. Isn't it expected to be positive even if they think as critically.

[1]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...