Reminds me of how in the original the matrix plot the humans were being used for compute power, but the studio execs decided audiences wouldn't understand it.
I'm sure there are plenty of Hitler chatbots already, that's low hanging fruit. There are already four games on Steam where I think you can fuck Hitler. One as a furry.
My Steam search is going to look weird for a while...
>Breathing life into a vile monster who remains a contentious subject is just gross and not worth publishing.
No, it is absolutely worth publishing, because that's exactly what AI does.
People already model celebrities and their dead children with it, and they have deeper and more intimate relationships with it than with any real person. People already allow AI to form their reality. The human "soul" (however one wants to think of it) is already a commodity. And the entire Epstein affair is already a circus. It's just another memeplex. That's the world we live in now. Sure, let's have an Epstein app. Why the fuck not? Why pretend we're serious people living in a serious society where Epstein's crimes have serious consequences?
It's art because it reflects the nature of reality.
Obviously it can only be trained on available documents and not the abstract essence of his actual personality, "talents" or what have you.
Any attempt to model a human being like this is going to be abysmally shallow, yet for some reason it's an industry unto itself, for everything from dead celebrities to Jesus Christ to lost loved ones.
The game didn't become viral because of its good quality, it became viral because it was made with AI, and the AI community (and HN) gassed it up. The author made money because he stuck ads in it while it was viral. The exact same game made entirely by a human being would be dismissed as garbage.
There are a few users who, when you see their name in certain contexts (usually politics) you just know that comment chain going to turn into a train wreck. I'm not going to name names but anyone who's been here long enough could probably guess a few repeat offenders.
But mostly in my experience it's otherwise perfectly normal users who at some point just decide to post something racist or bigoted, advocate violence (again, usually in political threads) or antisemitism or espouse some insane conspiracy theory nonsense. At that point I no longer care about anything else they might have to say.
HN would never do that, it would violate the minimalism of the site.
Most people aren't even aware that their posted URLs can be changed or their titles re-edited automatically because the UI doesn't give affordances for anything. You're just expected to notice and edit it out within the edit window (which there also isn't an affordance for.)
Most people on Hacker News don't bother to read the linked article and either comment based on their impression of the title or whatever random thing happens to be on their mind at the time. Most people who do bother to read the linked article stop as soon as they encounter javascript or formatting or too much whitespace or a minor logical, spelling or grammatical error and then that will likely become the subject of the entire thread.
The number of people who actually read the entire article and then attempt to comment in good faith are few and far between.
I'm glad to see people other than myself supporting this in HN threads.
I know dang doesn't want the forum to be "siloed" and so something like this is never going to be a feature proper but in my opinion it's all but impossible to use HN nowadays without a blocklist.
The problem with a religion where all it takes is one weird ritual to remain blameless in the eyes of God forever is that it's easy to let a lot of shit slide. Christians always say "we're not perfect, we're just forgiven."
So even though that is Christianity's message, Christianity's metagame means if you take it seriously, you don't actually have to put in the work. You're still going to Heaven because grace is through faith and not works.
You've been dealing with the wrong folks then because all Christians should believe what James says when we says
James 2:14-20, 26 (NET) What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him?
If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacks daily food,
and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,” but you do not give them what the body needs, what good is it?
So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself.
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith without works and I will show you faith by my works.
You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that – and tremble with fear.
But would you like evidence, you empty fellow, that faith without works is useless?
For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
I think this is the point being made: your 'should', and by extension your quote, has no meaning when grace is defined as the single goal of spiritual life, and then is reduced to a simple transaction.
Sure, people are free to believe whatever. I am quoting the very scripture they claim to believe though and so it would be hypocritical to do otherwise
The term we have for those folks is that they're doing "easy-believism" and it's broadly a pitfall within Christianity. It's not considered normative to so heavily lean on grace in the way that you're describing
Interestingly, the New Testament forewarns that the church will attract all kinds of sinful people, too: hypocrites, Pharisees, abusers, false prophets, false teachers, “wolves”, and those of dead faith as you mention. Jesus and the apostles consistently assume corruption, misuse of authority, and false prophets will exist.
This is further reflected in the biblical distinction between the visible and invisible church and Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the tares: genuine followers and the others grow together until the final judgment.
So, many people know that only a small minority of “Christians” are actually faithful followers of Jesus (i.e. regularly read Scripture and live in obedience to it). And, some estimates place this number as low as 1%.
Still dumb but not as dumb as what we got.
reply