I grin a bit whenever someone gets that infantile on what's supposed to be a board of high-minded intellectual sophisticates.
But I'm serious. This forum is meant for human beings to satisfy their intellectual curiosity discussing topics of interest which are usually but don't need to be related to tech or programming. The humanity matters, even if it's damned hard to find sometimes because expressing humanity is a negative social signal here.
AI may be the nexus of the industry at the moment but it's destroying everything this community and culture are supposed to be about. Every vibe coded project, every comment passed through ChatGPT, every conversation lacking in any technical merit because 99% of people here only know how to engineer a prompt and are aggressively ignorant about everything else. Every tedious philosophical drain-circling about whether AIs are sentient or whether humans even are. Every arrogant declaration by AI bros about its futility. And the implication behind all of it that the human element doesn't matter.
I mean, Show HN is supposed to be a place for passion projects, and it's turned into nothing but vibe-coded slop. It isn't fun anymore.
So they don't want us here, and we don't want them here. Someone vibe code a forum - because no one else will want to touch it then - and the AI bros can leave so those of us who think human effort still has value can discuss the things we have an interest in in peace, and there they can be as positive about AI as they want.
Yeah, it needs heavy moderation to remove the worthless fluff comments so that readers get high signal-to-noise. You can think an idea is bad but, you know, you gotta say why and have a debate about the details.
Exactly. I think there's an opportunity right now to reinvent public forum moderation with LLMs. Karpathy's recent post is going in the right direction I think: https://karpathy.bearblog.dev/auto-grade-hn/
> When I was taken to the Tate Modern as a child I’d point at Mark Rothko pieces and say to my mother “I could do that”, and she would say “yes, but you didn’t.”
I've had to read so far down to get a single non-stupid, ignorant, or inflammatory comment. What's wrong with HN, jeepers. Some actual discussion of the thing itself and not just pearl clutching would be appropriate here.
I worked at Last.fm from 2007 to 2012. The MIR team (think: research) developed a wonderful system called "RadioQL", which allowed you to stitch together custom ratio stations from any of a huge host of factors, joined together by AND, OR, and NOT. You could select artist radios, song radios, tags, and so on, but also combine this with things like the BPM or even some sentiment analysis. It was used a little bit inside some public-facing radio stations, but nobody outside of the staff ever got full access, and that's a tragedy as it was glorious.
The whole thrust of the article is complaining about timed tests and some kids getting more time. That's doubtless unfair if some are overclaiming, but the real solution is to not do timed tests at all - they are only serving to produce an arbitrary bell curve so that some can have higher grades and get better career opportunities. Better to not have a timer at all, and let people's actual ability shine.
Sure. I doubt that if some test at the moment takes an hour then you're getting much extra benefit at the five hour mark. The whole point of the time compression is to spread the grades out - along an axis different to "competence".
>whole point of the time compression is to spread the grades out
I suspect that is true for standardized tests like the SAT, ACT, or GRE.
I suspect in classroom environments that there isn't any intent at all on test timing other than most kids will be able to attempt most problems in the test time window. As far as I can tell, nobody cares much about spreading grades out at any level these days.
How strong is the argument that a student completing a test in 1 hour with the same score as a student who took 10 hours that the first student performed "better" or had a greater understanding of the material?
Sure, but that answer doesn't address the questions of the value of time limits on assessment.
What if instead we are talking about a paper or project? Why isn't time-to-complete part of the grading rubric?
Do we penalize a student who takes 10 hours on a project vs the student who took 1 hour if the rubric gives a better grade to the student who took 10 hours?
Or assume teacher time isn't a factor - put two kids in a room with no devices to take an SAT test on paper. Both kids make perfect scores. You have no information on which student took longer. How are the two test takers different?
Not arguing with any of that, just stating plainly that there are practical reasons for time limits and one of the many reasons is that tests are done supervised and thus must have _some_ sort of time limit. Everything else is you projecting an argument onto me that I didn't make.
