Hacker News .hnnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is the equivalent of chiming in “75% of users eh? So that’s what… 3 out of every 4?”

Yeah, we all know that the problems that AI is likely to amplify are already problems. The question is whether or not those problems will get worse.

No matter how imperfect the current world is, one which is worse is 1) always possible and 2) worth preventing.



I was reacting to the implication that "traditionally published" is some sort of badge of quality.

Remember "Snooki"?

Traditionally-published.

I could name dozens, nay, hundreds of others.

In fact, "traditionally published" simply means that a big conglomerate thought it would make a buck. Quality doesn't enter into the equation. At all.


A big conglomerate [with access to market data on the demand side and tons of book optionality on the supply side] thinking it would make a buck absolutely is an additional filter for quality that doesn’t exist for AI-written self-published books.

Real businesses and real authors also tend to be concerned about getting sued for things like libel or defamation, or just generally having their brand reputations dragged through the mud after releasing mislabeled and subpar products.

It’s definitely an imperfect filter, sure, but then just see my original comment.


We could have a discussion about which celebrities you don't like but the issue here is material which is factually wrong and hence dangerous.


Like, say, astrology? Should that be banned?

No one put you, or anyone, in charge of deciding which information is "dangerous".


[flagged]


It’s the contrarianism fetish run amok


Yeah, I'm not sure what's up with these weirdos. It's like they expect to be taken seriously when their worldview is apparently based on absurdist philosophy.


It's taking ideas of cultural relativism to their most absurd, and useless conclusion.


Believing that adult human beings shouldn't be restricted from writing, or reading, anything they damned well pleased is not an "absurdist philosophy".


Thinking that random HN commenters should not be allowed to dictate what may, and may not, be published is neither "contrarianism" nor a "fetish".


> Remember “Snooki”?

> Traditionally-published.

Snooki was an established celebrity with a brand well before she was published at all; as far as I know her books were pretty much exactly in line with what people buying on the strength of their marketing would expect.

It may be “garbage” from the perspective of people with your or my tastes, but they were almost certainly not garbage from the perspective of the people to whom they were marketed. They weren’t, unlike the algorithmic (and previously, low-effort human written) spam that Amazon’s no-standards publishing and retailing policies effectively promote.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: