These changes aren’t being suggested in a vacuum.

It’s perhaps unintentional, but your framing makes it seem that this is a baseless whimsy.

At this point, it appears that we will be talking to bots more than humans.

It’s a brave new world, and not adapting to it will see the humans leave.

You don’t have a choice.

We live with GenAI, and the human to bot ratio is now leaning in a different direction. The old norms are dead, because the old structures that held them up are gone.

This idea that theres “more hoops - losing participation” on this thread keeps assuming that the community is unaffected by the macro trends.

It’s weirdly positing that HN posts and users, are somehow immune/unaffected by those trends.

The issue is that it’s not that much effort anymore.

We rely on friction for most of our social norms.

Morals come FIRST at Open AI.

Their whole schtick is based on ensuring safety for humanity given the existential risk of a singularity.

Open AI employees MUST get called out, because entire economies and industries are being reshaped due to their statements.

They aren't some mom and pop shop, and they aren't some typical tech firm.

No, retraining has been tested and found to be unfeasible. Even if you throw money at it.

This is all communication no?

If people do not share the same context, then they will come up with different interpretations of the same content.

In communities with more homogenous understanding of the context, people are able to get into the details more effectively.

Those communities tend to also be impervious to outsiders, or newbies, because the use of terms/jargon that speeds up conversation abound.

No, this goes beyond that. A well-written article or book doesn’t need to be padded with junk to cater to bad readers, or to preempt trolls, because they can’t scrawl all over it such that it disrupts others’ experience. You have to go to e.g. the Amazon reviews to find people complaining that an author didn’t address something that they very definitely did, or claimed something they certainly did not, that stuff doesn’t show up on the page in footnotes or turn into flame wars on the page where everyone sees it.

No it doesn't.

This is armchair philosophy when pragmatism and problem solving serve better.

Fundamentals - Teaching is expensive, and we don't have enough teachers.

Verifying if someone has the skills is difficult.

Given the shortage of teachers, and the difficulty of verification, we ways to bridge the gap.

The first step is always going to be to spend more on education, especially in underserved areas.

The new options we have with LLMs is to increase the rate of testing, and test out the benefits of low stakes testing at scale.

> This is armchair philosophy when pragmatism and problem solving serve better.

Punishing innocent people out of negligence is not pragmatism, and refusing to tolerate such punishment is not armchair philosophy.

sorry, perhaps I misunderstand, but dont you /wouldn’t you take the best from others as well? Is that outside of consideration for some reason?

Emotional Support is one of the most common use cases of Generative tools in the UK, and the % of people with mental health issues in first world countries is an order of magnitude higher than 0.1%.

Behavioral addictions are even more common place.

These numbers grow worse as you move towards the global majority which has even fewer doctors, let alone mental health professionals.

0.1% is a feel good figure to minimize cognitive dissonance when we don’t want to harm others but don’t want to curtail our benefits.

The question I’d ask is what threshold % of human population would you consider too much

That would be if this were crisis intervention though. Currently arguments I am reading here are positing that this was simply role play.

Automated crisis response is challenging, because it’s a perfect storm of high variance, unpredictable behavior, high stakes, responsibility and liability.