Remix clone Hacker News

If you're going to make such an assertive statement you should maybe backup that claim with some substance. Without such, it's akin to an atheist proudly proclaiming there is definitely no such thing as god.

▲

wruza 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

it's akin to an atheist proudly proclaiming there is definitely no such thing as god

Almost feels like you supposed that to sound bad.

▲

abletonlive a day ago | parent [-]

Yes because agnostic atheism is a logically superior belief system, that's much more intellectually honest and ironically: humble.

▲

wruza a day ago | parent [-]

Aren't beliefs secondary guests in discussions about substance?

Edit: I'm not even a strict atheist if that matters much, but I wouldn't talk about it in assertive/provemewrong tone anywhere, cause it's not even remotely logical.

	▲	namaria 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Atheism is such a weird position to take. Why define a negation of something you don't believe to be real? I'm not "a-lochnes-monster-ist" or "ayettist". If someone thinks the idea of a deity is nonsensical why then use the label "atheist"?

▲

bpodgursky 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

No, actually the person asserting that a thing exists has the burden of proof.

You can demonstrate that the military has fighter jets better than civilians. Easy. You have no evidence at all that the military has super advanced AI systems consumers don't have. And in fact all anecdotal evidence for the past 3 years is that OSINT is as good or better than the DoD capabilities for photo analysis.

▲

abletonlive 2 days ago | parent [-]

> No, actually the person asserting that a thing exists has the burden of proof.

Well, I'm not the one that made an assertion so I think both of you should provide some proof/evidence/support for your assertion. It doesn't matter if the assertion is for the existence of something or not. When you make an assertion you provide backing evidence to support it. Even for the assertion of nonexistence. This is basic stuff. Weird to even have to argue about it on HN. But just in case you never learned it, "There is no X" (your original assertion) is different from "There is no evidence for the existence of X".

> Easy. You have no evidence at all that the military has super advanced AI systems consumers don't have.

Okay I'll bite, we have access to project maven and knows exactly what it's capable of?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Maven https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2024-ai-warfare-project-m...

Okay sure, whatever you say. You clearly are privy to all of the projects the government is involved with, and surely while all of the consumer AI capabilities have been released they've been sitting around doing nothing with it like a deer in headlights.

Consumer AI has more data available to train off of than the government....right?

I'm sure the government just threw away all their AI projects and bought a chatgpt pro subscription because it's better or the same as what they are using with all the same capabilities...

What a silly position to take. Why did everybody foolishly make such a big deal about all the data they were collecting all these years

	▲	neom 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's kinda not how it works around here tho, I think? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - we generally don't cross examine, and generally take people at their word, debate the merits sure, but it's not particularly done around here to say "prove it", at least from what I can tell.