| ▲ | quaintdev 5 hours ago |
| Offtopic. I have a concern that this forum is removing stories that have negative connotation on AI. Few days back, I posted an article[1] that was about how AI threatens natural resources for billions. This was from United Nations and it was flagged. I did not think much about it until I saw two other stories [2] & [3] today that were doing fairly good on front page but they suddenly disappeared. They are not even on 2nd or 3rd page. I have seen this happening at other times as well but did not document it. Just thought you all should know about this. I was going to create Tell HN thread but I thought the same would happen with it too. I am pretty sure this thread is not going anywhere so I'm posting my concern here. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49290062 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49318906 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49319582 |
|
| ▲ | andsoitis 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > how AI threatens natural resources for billions. The article rests on the claim that water usage of data centers on continent X threaten water availability for humans on continent Y. I hope you can see how self-evidently illogical that is. The article tries to bend logic into a narrative it is trying to push. > This was from United Nations and it was flagged. Indeed! It exposes a level of lack of rigor and critical thinking which is astounding - this is meant to be an organization that thinks clearly, which it clearly does not. |
|
| ▲ | dgacmu 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Your second two had high comments to upvotes, which tends to get articles downranked more quickly. It may simply be that the stuff you're posting is generating disagreement without corresponding upvotes. |
| |
|
| ▲ | jeroenhd an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This forum tends to be visited by an intersection of technologists and the VC crowd. The HN algorithm is more open and transparent than Reddit's, but any Reddit-like platform suffers from the whims of the community. Currently, it seems like a disproportionate amount of HN users are hyped up about generative AI compared to people in the real world, so you'll see those whims back in voting and flagging tendencies. That said, there is also a vocal anti-AI crowd here, or at least there used to be. Most of those people seemed to have left for greener pastures seeing how half the HN front page is "someone made XYZ but now with AI" these days. There are other places that discuss tech that aren't so focused on making money, and those are probably less biased in favour of the latest AI gadget. On the other hand, since the day ChatGPT was unleashed upon the general public, you should assume all online interaction is happening through AI and should probably be ignored. The human internet died the day we taught computers how to write a coherent paragraph. |
| |
|
| ▲ | driverdan 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It happened to this Flock post from yesterday https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49314962 |
| |
|
| ▲ | lilerjee 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Actually, I found the phenomenon too. I think there are two main reasons: 1. ycombinator supports many AI companies. 2. There are too many marketers from AI companies. |
|
| ▲ | nonethewiser an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But why do you think this isn’t the flagging system working as intended? |
|
| ▲ | Aurornis 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Offtopic. I have a concern that this forum is removing stories that have negative connotation on AI. The first example was flagged by users. It fits the pattern of other political clickbait stories. The top comment is calling out problems with it. This type of story pops up and gets flagged all the time on different topics. Some people assume a conspiracy or moderation misbehavior, but when most of the comments in the thread are people calling out obvious problems with the article it leads to a lot of users clicking the flag button. Articles with poor logic or tortured claims don't last long here. The second one is an Ask HN on a contentious topic with more comments than upvotes. There’s an automatic filter on this website designed to detect flame wars and I suspect it down ranks threads that aren’t getting many upvotes but are attracting a lot of comments. Happens to many Ask HN threads. The third one doesn't even strike me as anti-AI. I don't know why you included it as an example of an anti-AI agenda because it's still about a future where everyone is using AI. It has other problems though because it's willfully ignoring the fact that inference is getting cheaper at a fast rate. It probably got dropped from the front page because the ratio of comments to upvotes was bad, like the other story. There isn’t a conspiracy theory to be found in these examples. This is just what happens to tired topics on this site. Anti-AI topics are on the front page all the time. I think that story you tried to post was just a badly written anger bait piece, it got called out in the comments, and people started flagging it. |
| |
| ▲ | GPerson 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | In my opinion anthropic doing product feature reveals is a tired topic but it hits the front page every day. This website has a clear pro-AI bias (which is fine). | |
| ▲ | throw1234567891 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The first example was flagged by users. It fits the pattern of other political clickbait stories. That’s what they mean. It’s too easy to flag something here, as it is too easy to downvote. | | |
| ▲ | nonethewiser an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | >That’s what they mean. It’s too easy to flag something here He didn’t say that at all. He said there was bias towards removing negative AI posts. He showed no knowledge of the flagging system and that it could just be working as intended. | |
| ▲ | hungryhobbit 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | ... if you post downvotable stuff. Maybe post less crap and more high quality thoughtful content? | | |
| ▲ | throw1234567891 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The problem isn’t low quality content, that gets filtered out mostly before it reaches the front page. The problem are people who downvote based on emotional trigger, not argument. And people ganging up. Never had a case where suddenly within a minute you get 4, 5 downvotes? Seems like an organised group. | | |
| ▲ | NewsaHackO 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That seems more like a conspiracy theory. I think the group of people who 1) view this website and 2) click on a thread about certain topics are a heavily conditioned (and therefore more homogenized) group; if you say something that is controversial/low quality, it is likely going to get downvoted by multiple people in that group. | | |
| ▲ | rustystump 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Controversial/low quality are both subjective and i am not a fan of putting controversial next to low quality. I do agree I dont think there is any larger bias other than a homogeneous group but it does question if such a group will up/down vote similar homogeneous content producing overall lower quality discussion and content. |
| |
| ▲ | hamburglar an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Never had a case where suddenly within a minute you get 4, 5 downvotes? Well, no, I never have, but if I did, my first reaction would be to think I struck a nerve and had a bunch of people react, not that there was a conspiracy. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sat15243 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | All flagged stories are flagged by users that are part of an interest group. unric.org is political clickbait? Give me a break, Mr. "nothing to see here". | | |
| ▲ | chrisweekly 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > "All flagged stories are flagged by users that are part of an interest group." False. I occasionally flag items, never as part of nor acting on behalf of any particular interest group. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s the classic “everyone who disagrees with me is a bot or a shill”. |
| |
| ▲ | fasterik 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What "interest group" are you referring to, and how do you know that it's not individual users with a legitimate good faith disagreement? | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > All flagged stories are flagged by users that are part of an interest group. Read the comments. People were actually reading the topic and calling it out. This gets topics flagged. It’s not coordinated interest groups conspiring to remove stories. > Give me a break, Mr. "nothing to see here". Okay, Mr. “I just created an alt account for this comment” |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Barbing 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Were they caught here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39230513 See anything below too? https://news.social-protocols.org/stats?id=49290062 https://news.social-protocols.org/stats?id=49318906 https://news.social-protocols.org/stats?id=49319582 Edit: previous sibling comments explain pretty well + imagine moving the needle on AI on HN with negative coverage of it! |
|
| ▲ | perching_aix 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Seeing the reception on the first one, maybe "removing stories that have negative connotation on AI" is not the most honest description of what happened there. It reminds me to how various political movements will complain about being unfairly censored, pointing at their posts being disproportionately removed as evidence of this, then you look at said posts, and discover that they're simply disproportionately questionable in the first place. There's definitely merit to monitoring something like this, so I do appreciate you surfacing this here, but there's also definitely a wheat and a chaff to this, and so based on just this much I have to disagree. |
| |
| ▲ | quaintdev 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I understand this is not enough but I don't see a story here that paints AI negatively. If one is posted it gets removed swiftly. And I have seen this happen enough times that I'm considering taking periodic snapshots of the front page and prove this definitively. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I understand this is not enough but I don't see a story here that paints AI negatively. If one is posted it gets removed swiftly. Are we reading the same site? There is constant anti-AI content on the front page. I know you're upset that your submission got flagged, but as most of the comments pointed out it wasn't even a well-argued piece. It got flagged because users here expect to read reasonable arguments, but the commenters called out real problems with the article and the arguments it was failing to make. I would take it as feedback about what types of articles aren't welcome by the users here, not an indictment of the specific topic you submitted. | |
| ▲ | owebmaster 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You have a point. Check /active and you'll see some posts | | | |
| ▲ | perching_aix 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's a good weekend project, just gotta be careful not to fall for motivated reasoning and not to overreach. A heavy prior suspicion of conspiracy doesn't help. A sibling comment mentioned a few details already, but there's a good amount of information out there about how HN's post ranking system and moderation works, that'd probably be good to also consider. Maybe reaching out to the mods would also be helpful in the way of this. To give you an anecdotal example, if I see a post mentioning how LLMs are "just next token predictors", I'm basically flagging that by reflex at this point. Not because it'd be literally untrue, but because it's asinine overall. But you won't be able to infer this from data, only the fact that a post using "AI-critical language" was flagged. Or there was another post about how Ireland's electricity use is so-and-so % data center driven, further suggesting that this is trending up. This was not true, and the article was further horribly unhelpful in actually putting this fact into context, or properly conveying the trends. I think I ended up flagging that one as a result, after posting - what I thought - was a lot fairer picture (and even that was awfully lacking in context). Once again, an "AI-critical" post which on the face of it would have been simply censored if enough flags gathered. There's also the mundane human angle to this, where people enthusiastic about <thing> won't necessarily be the most receptive to criticism to it, and will be more likely to try and pick that criticism apart. Gotta match the audience on some level. | | |
| ▲ | owebmaster 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I see a post mentioning how LLMs are "just next token predictors", I'm basically flagging that by reflex at this point. You are doing a disservice as people going through AI psychosis should hear that LLMs are just calculators. | | |
| ▲ | perching_aix 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You are doing a disservice as people going through AI psychosis should hear that LLMs are just calculators. Not any more than I do by not going around telling the depressed to simply chin up, or telling people who are frustrated with Trump that they're simply sick with TDS. There's no world where instigating others through snide insinuations works out in one's favor. You may feel extremely justified in acting like this, but I don't think you'd appreciate if you were met the same way in other subjects either. Unfair as it is, an escalation is an escalation, no matter the context or the justification. It's always a lose-lose. You can remind people that the conversations are simulated and that LLMs are just programs without reductively handwaving how they work. You can express frustration with the overenthusiasm around LLMs without accusing others of mental illness. I guarantee you that it lands a lot better and provides a significantly better "service" than shouting ragebait into the void ever does. Give others a chance to be better than what you think of them. You may be surprised. Consider post [3] that the parent commenter cited as an example for a post that had a "negative connotation to AI". In reality, it doesn't take much reading to confirm it was anything but. But even if we pretend that it was, and assume it was some hit piece about how "all the people who are now willingly having their brain fried will have to wake up to a grim reality", it doesn't take much to see that token frugality and business justification of AI-use is very much in the interest of those who do feel enthused about LLMs. So there'd be no reason to present the topic so maliciously; on the contrary, the author could tailor the article around this other perspective, and they'd reach a new audience with the same fundamental message, and have them cooperate too. Tangentially related in its principle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1EVk7k9S7Q |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 1qu5476 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Removing AI critical submissions is one of the methods. The other, even more insidious one, is to flag pro-AI stories once they have attracted even a single comment that exposes conflicts of interest or other scams. Such comments need to cut deep though. Simple AI criticism like "AI didn't work in my org" is still allowed. The censorship methods follow the general media pattern that the appearance of discussion is allowed (like you can call Trump an idiot in political discussions) but comments that expose the real flow of money or scams are not. |
| |
| ▲ | jansport123 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | there is absolutely no forum without biases. Least of all, a VC forum like this one. | | |
| ▲ | jackb4040 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yup. And if someone tells you they're making a "free speech app", prepare for the most aggressive monoculture you've ever seen |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 0xbadcafebee 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [delayed] |
|
| ▲ | shimman an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| During the DOGE massacres last year where various tech bros were destroying the federal government, most of the stories were flagged from the front page of this site. There is a strong bias at play here, please remember when discussing anything pro- worker or environment. |
|
| ▲ | bcjdjsndon 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
