Sure but quite a few claims in the article are about AI research. He does not have any qualifications there. If the focus was more on usefulness, that would be a different discussion and then his experience does add weight.

▲

djdishsv 2 days ago | parent [-]

> smart, intelligent person gives opinion

> woah buddy this persons opinion isn’t worth anything more than a random homeless person off the street. they’re not an expert in this field

Is there a term for this kind of pedantry? Obviously we can put more weight behind the words a person says if they’ve proven themselves trustworthy in prior areas - and we should! We want all people to speak and let the best idea win. If we fallback to only expert opinions are allowed that’s asking to get exploited. And it’s also important to know if antirez feels comfortable spouting nonsense.

This is like a basic cornerstone of a functioning society. Though, I realize this “no man is innately better than another, evaluate on merit” is mostly a western concept which might be some of my confusion.

▲

cinntaile 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Evaluate on merit indeed and that is not what is happening. The parent I replied to used an authoritative argument that is not based on (relevant) merit.

▲

blibble 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Obviously we can put more weight behind the words a person says if they’ve proven themselves trustworthy in prior areas - and we should!

no, you shouldn't

this is how you end up with crap like vaccine denialism going mainstream

"but he's a doctor!"

	▲	echelon 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Credentialism isn't a fix for the problem you've outlined. If anything, over-reliance on credentials bolsters and lends credence to crazy claims. The media hyper-fixates on it and amplifies it. We've got Avi Loeb on mainstream podcasts and TV spouting baseless alien nonsense. He's a preeminent in his field, after all. Focus on what you understand. If you don't understand, learn more.