It does if the person making the statement has a track record, proven expertise on the topic - and in this case… it actually may mean something to other people

▲ shimman 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, as we all know that unsourced unsubstantiated statements are the best way to verify claims regarding engineering practices. Especially when said person has a financial stake in the outcomes of said claims.

No conflict of interest here at all!

▲ tptacek 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I have zero financial stake in Anthropic and more broadly my career is more threatened by LLM-assisted vulnerability research (something I do not personally do serious work on) than it is aided by it, but I understand that the first principal component of casual skepticism on HN is "must be a conflict of interest".

▲ godelski an hour ago | parent | next [-]

  > but I understand that the first principal component of casual skepticism on HN is "must be a conflict of interest".

I think the first principle should be "don't trust random person on the internet"

(But if you think Tom is random, look at his profile. First link, not second)

▲ malfist 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You still haven't answered why I should care that you, a stranger on the internet, believes some unsubstantiated hearsay?

▲

wtallis 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Take a look at https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders

The user you're suspicious of is pretty well-known in this community.

▲

godelski an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Someone's credibility cannot be determined by their point counts. Holy fuck is that not a way to evaluate someone in the slightest. Points don't matter.

Instead look at their profile...

Points != creds. Creds == creds.

Don't be fucking lazy and rely on points, especially when they link their identity.

▲

wtallis an hour ago | parent [-]

I wasn't at all saying that points = credibility. I was saying that points = not unknown. Enough people around here know who he is, and if he didn't have credibility on this topic he'd be getting down voted instead of voted to the top.

	▲	godelski an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Is that meaningfully different? If you read malfist's point as "tptacek's point isn't valuable because it's from some random person on the internet" then the problem is "random person on the internet" = "unknown credentials". In group, out group, notoriety, points, whatever are not the issue. I'll put it this way, I don't give a shit about Robert Downy Jr's opinion on AI technology. His notoriety "means nothing to anybody". But instead, I sure do care about Hinton's (even if I disagree with him). malfist asked why they should care. You said points. You should have said "tptacek is known to do security work, see his profile". Done. Much more direct. Answers the actual question. Instead you pointed to points, which only makes him "not a stranger" at best but still doesn't answer the question. Intended or not "you should believe tptacek because he has a lot of points" is a reasonable interpretation of what you said.

▲

drekipus 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

delusional 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	hiccup_socks an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

dinunnob 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲ catoc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A security researcher claiming that they’re not skeptical about LLMs being able to do part of their job - where is the financial stake in that?

▲ dvfjsdhgfv an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It doesn't mean we have to agree:

https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/contra-ptaceks-terrible-arti...

	▲	tptacek 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Here's a fun exercise: go email the author of that blog (he's very nice) and ask how much of it he still stands by.