In a corrupt and authoritarian country, it is common to have officials busted on "corruption" or "embezzlement" charges. And yet most people know they are actually not jailed for the crimes they got charged for, because there are more than enough people to fill all the prisons for breaking the exact same laws they are accused of breaking. They knew the only reason these people got jailed is because they lost some kind of power struggle within the administration, and corruption is just a convenient lie those who prevailed tell you to keep you comfortable.
You never see the "no politics please thk u" crowd when it is about protests in Iran, Chinese oppression in Hong Kong, Russian aggression on Europe or hell, when people were literally running a political campaign the EU to stop killing games. You only see people flagging political submissions when it is a particular kind of politics - just like you only see corrupt officials jailed when they are a certain kind of officials.
There is always going to be an intersection between tech and politics. This convo is no different than talking about Section 230, H1B visas or using vision models to sexualize people or distort the truth.
Or rather, most people aren’t here to have their preconceived notions challenged by reality.
Politics is a nebulous term for topics that affect a large number of the population. Tech intersects with politics all the time and deserves good faith discussion.
When the computer code many of us are working on is directly shaping that politics I think that we should talk about it and stop hiding behind the bush.
Yeah so find a forum that’s for discussing that and discuss it there. Don’t try and force people who are discussing something else to talk about politics with you. Do you also randomly go onto GitHub issues and start talking politics because the people who are talking about repo bugs are “hiding behind a bush” and should talk about the political things you think are important instead?
I think that forums like this one should discuss politics as affected by computer code seeing as HN is one of the main (for lack of a better word) computer programmers' forums based/located in/with a focus on SV, it's not some random computer forum which specializes in some random computer programming issue.
Hacker News is not lambda-the-ultimate.org, seeing them as similar is part of that hiding behind the bush, people commenting on here actually work at companies like Palantir, Alphabet, Meta and the like, companies whose recent involvement in politics affects us all, at a worldwide level. Also see this recent FT article [1] in connection with how the leaders of those companies have gotten a lot reacher since Trump ascended to power for a second time.
> Tech titans lined up for Trump’s second inauguration. Now they’re even richer
> Silicon Valley bosses who lined up behind the US president for his inauguration have fared well under his administration
Absolutely and it's unfortunate that all essential topics that need discussion, which is the only thing that works to understand and find solutions for problems, is being flagged off the front page. Some of the flagging seems political as well, why isn't that recognized as a problem as well?
There was a time when SV and technology eschewed politics, but that time is long gone. You only have to look at how often all the big tech CEO's end up at random Whitehouse events to see how they are intimately intertwined now.
There has always been politics in SV, this is a weird rewriting of history.
Presumably there’s so much pushback now because people are quite uncomfortable having to confront the fact that they may be the bad guys (even though they were probably the bad guys years ago as well).
> There has always been politics in SV, this is a weird rewriting of history.
Not rewriting at all.
Nien-hê Hsieh, a professor of business ethics at Harvard University says that in the 1990s, “there was a real reluctance or reticence to engage in Washington” from the leading tech companies of the day.
...
The early 2010s saw huge growth in lobbying spending by tech companies. A plateau in the late Obama years was followed by another steep increase once Trump took office. But in recent years some major players have slowed or even decreased their spending, suggesting that major corporations are becoming more sophisticated in their approach to wielding power on Capitol Hill.
It gets down to the definition of political which is basically anything that might have a human cost, including to the people here. I have many coworkers having to upend their lives, some can’t currently leave the country. This is not worthy of discussion, but an esoteric library update is. Paul Graham posts are not political topics for some reason, but H1B people is.
Technology, technology leaders, and technology companies are literally driving politics, buying elections, driving the whole US economy.
Saying what “political” topics are IS political - and it’s decidedly a right wing position. Only those with the powers protecting them get to avoid politics.
Well said. Even people with a lot in common can and should disagree often. In non-authoritarian systems, politics is supposed to be about managing this disagreement in civil ways. Politics seems unsavory to some, often because they find a lot of political manifestations to be vile or insipid. [1] I get that, but in a way this revulsion is backwards. The alternatives to the sausage-making of politics is usually worse: pretending there is no disagreement, coercion, violence, gaslighting. So when someone says "I don't like politics" I like to say "disagreement is to be expected".
The "hide" link is right next to the "flag" link. Using flag instead of hide puts more strain on the mods, and is not the right thing to do for "this topic doesn't apply to my interests."
If your problem is that you have no means to control what other people find important enough to talk about on a public forum, in their spare time, or that the means at your disposal to do so are insufficient to make other people saying things that make you uncomfortable go away... That isn't a problem that can or should should be fixed. Hell, the desire you've expressed could be uncharitably interpreted being contributory to part of the problem that has people around you discussing politics in the first place.
FWIW I agree with you and recognize that to be one of the reasons it frequently isn’t allowed.
I also think there’s very few places with the power to meaningfully dialog with and among people who build stuff in Silicon Valley. I have dozens of friends, coworkers, etc who are in FAANG or the newer big tech companies, and all of them are extremely well paid, and most will insist they work for positive reasons. I believe in that most of them believe in other people, and don’t want to build a surveillance society or one that concentrates all wealth and power in a few.
For this reason, I think that some conversations on here are important to have - the impact technology is having on people who are outside the tech sphere, the effect of leaders of our companies on the economy, geopolitics, and power generally. Mark Facebook is a powerful player on the world stage. So is Paul Graham, and Sundar Pichai. Davos just took place - leaders from major economies are seeking guidance from these people who many people here work for. Let nobody say they aren’t participating in politics. Where you work matters, what you build matters. It’s not tinkering around in people’s garages anymore - they’re building the infinity gauntlet and someone is gathering all the gems. The Death Star plans are on AWS.
To pretend otherwise is to deny one’s responsibility - in the short term frequently profitable. In the long term, the pendulum tends to swing back..
But it is the right thing to do for "this topic violates HN guidelines both in letter and in spirit, as well as predictably causing low-quality discussion threads".
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
To the latter point, hundreds of comments in, and nobody has even brought up the intellectual curiosity angle of this (what limits are in place to the Federal government using data from Federal programs for law enforcement purposes? and does it matter if the program is administered by individual states?).
Instead it's just political rage bait, including citing the Rev Niemöller poem as if we're talking about Nazis.
(It used to be part of Internet culture that the moment you compared something mundane to the Nazis, you automatically lost the argument and were mocked mercilessly. We should bring that back.)
You're past the time of saying that and not being seen as an enabler my friend. This isn't normal politics anymore. They are killing people in the streets. If you don't think that your tech toys have a lot to do with that, then you should grow up. This pathetic point does not apply anymore.
There are no interesting apolitical topics. Food tastes good sometimes, weather is doing weather stuff, yawn. I feel like we sometimes try to seek conflict out of boredom
Just to add on, armchair quarterbacking is a thing, it’s easy in hindsight to label decisions as the result of bad intentions. This is completely different than whatever might have been at play in the moment and retrospective judgement is often unrealistic.
It’s an indicator of extremely low effort. I don’t think fundamentally it’s people not liking the picture, or liking it less than a stock picture (even if the all look the same) it’s just a tell that someone is being super lazy. Same as people don’t like seeing AI posts on forums like HN. It’s less a judgement about the content of the post and more about the way the poster is interacting. Everyone can use AI themselves if they wanted to see throwaway AI output so it feels condescending when it’s presented to us.
The comparison is false anyway, even if one just understands a high level language, there is no magic, you’re working in a closed system where you can understand and explain what your code is doing. There may be edge case, performance things, etc where understanding at a lower level is important but you can work completely in the abstraction.
Vibe coding, certainly as an “abstraction”, is nothing like that, you’re hoping you can get across the behavior you want, and have no visibility into what choices are actually being made with regard to how it’s specified. It’s the same as being a manager that can’t code, you’re entirely at the mercy of the people doing the actual work. That’s not true when you code without knowing semiconductor physics.
I call it “AI blindness”, people genuinely don’t see what’s bad about AI output, it happens across code, text, and images. Same as the title itself being X not Y AI slop.
This has almost never been my experience in ~20 years of working. Other than a few fleeting assholes, all of my work relationships have essentially been collegial, with all parties, regardless of position, looking at how we can best get the work done that’s in front of us. I’ve never felt exploited or used and never felt I was exploiting those I managed.
I think if one sees their work this way, maybe it comes true? It’s a very cynical way of looking at things.
Since we’re speaking anecdotally: I’ve also worked in service industry, and I have personally observed employers/managers abusing their power to elevate themselves at the expense of their employees. Does that make you reconsider? I would hazard to guess it doesn’t.
My point being that anecdotal evidence isn’t particularly useful.
> I’m not even sure it’s that common in most modern workplaces.
I don’t know what to tell you honestly. This is an incredibly naive take
Edit:
I feel I’ve been uncharitable in responding to you. I think we are likely talking past each other and what an “extractive” relationship is. I don’t think people are malicious. Most people (IMO) are essentially good and maliciousness is relatively rare. That said, if you work for an employer, you will always be resisting pressure from above to do more work for less pay. Maybe you’re lucky and you have an excellent middle manager (I have had some) who are skilled at preventing shit from rolling downhill. The fact remains the pressure exists and eventually, someone breaks. Maybe they have a bad day, or fall into financial distress, or the economy sucks. It doesn’t really matter. The people who pay the highest cost are the people at closer to the bottom of that hierarchy.
> Issues and discussions can use AI assistance but must have a full human-in-the-loop. This means that any content generated with AI must have been reviewed and edited by a human before submission.
I can see this being a problem. I read a thread here a few weeks ago where someone was called out on submitting an AI slop article they wrote with all the usual tells. They finally admitted it but said something to the effect they reviewed it and stood behind every line.
The problem with AI writing is at least some people appear incapable of critically reviewing it. Writing something yourself eliminates this problem because it forces you to pick your words (there could be other problems of course).
So the AI-blind will still submit slop under the policy but believe themselves to have reviewed it and “stand behind” it.
For example, authors may have given an LLM a partial description of a citation and asked the LLM to produce bibtex
This is equivalent to a typo. I’d like to know which “hallucinations” are completely made up, and which have a corresponding paper but contain some error in how it’s cited. The latter I don’t think matters.
If you click on the article you can see a full list of the hallucinations they found. They did put in the effort to look for plausible partial matches, but most of them are some variation of "No author or title match. Doesn't exist in publication."
Reference: Asma Issa, George Mohler, and John Johnson. Paraphrase identification using deep contextual-
ized representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural
Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 517–526, 2018.
Asma Issa and John Johnson don't appear to exist. George Mohler does, but it doesn't look like he works in this area (https://www.georgemohler.com/). No paper with that title exists. There are some with sort of similar titles (https://arxiv.org/html/2212.06933v2 for example), but none that really make sense as a citation in this context. EMNLP 2018 exists (https://aclanthology.org/D18-1.pdf), but that page range is not a single paper. There are papers in there that contain the phrases "paraphrase identification" and "deep contextualized representations", so you can see how an LLM might have come up with this title.
It's not the equivalent of a typo. A typo would be immediately apparent to the reader. This is a semantic error that is much less likely to be caught by the reader.
Pretty sure this is a feature not a bug. Most people aren’t here for political topics.