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

	▲	3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

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