Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Aerroon's commentslogin

I think they can match a human in critical thinking, but they can't match a human in coherence and meta-thinking. You can prompt an LLM to critically think of any idea you want and it's often able to do so, but it's rarely going to do that by itself.

If things go bad then the problem they cause is so huge that nobody is capable of taking responsibility for it. The following is an illustration of what I mean:

Eg imagine if one of these surveillance companies gets hacked. Personal data and the habits of a hundred million people get compromised.

The penalties for this should be enough to make everyone affected whole.

If your neighbor had a secret camera in your home - what would it take to make you whole? I imagine most people would be okay with like $50k (or some other large sum like that).

Are these surveillance companies ready to pay $50k per person? Hell no. 100M * 50k = $5 trillion.

Nobody can afford to pay that much. They either end up going bankrupt or are absolved of this responsibility. Either way, the people affected will not be made whole.


The way AI and copyright is handled paved the way for this. If you aren't considered the author because you used AI to some extent in making the work, then why would you assume the liabilities?

I've been saying since the start that AI is a tool that a human is using and should be treated as such. They should carry the responsibilities and the benefits. That way our stance would be consistent.


> If you aren't considered the author because you used AI to some extent in making the work, then why would you assume the liabilities?

Maybe some analogy could be with children - as a parent, you are responsible for their misbehavior, but their achievements are their, not your?


Well, when they are a child their material gains are treated as yours, no? (Parents of child actors control the money etc.) And once they aren't anymore you aren't responsible for their misbehavior either (because they've become an adult).

RuneScape is still one of the most popular MMOs out there. Last year it peaked at over 240k people online (concurrent users). It's nowhere near as popular as Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft but it's still doing very well.

I think what happened to the MMO genre is mobile games. They siphoned away the casual playerbase, so the old dynamics don't work as well anymore.

>It's tempting to think there's something like "the MMO" that's yet to be discovered, just like the arena shooter was.

It wouldn't surprise me if this was seasonal games like Diablo and Path of Exile. I've thought that seasons like in those games are the future of games like MMOs since they provide a natural hype cycle and jumping on point for the game.

But something entirely new would likely be AI related. Perhaps AI tools in the (far) future will allow so much decent content to be made that games can constantly offer new experiences. Like imagine a near limitless world to explore. That could be interesting.


worth mentioning there's some indication the 240k peak was massively inflated by bot accounts. but by all means there are many fewer bot accounts this year, and it's still ~150k concurrents frequently. so it's still doing very well, but the numbers are a little different.

>- Social media and doomscrolling without sufficient parental controls: Several OECD countries are already addressing this by introducing or considering restrictions on teenagers’ access to social media.

Surely this time banning things will improve test scores!

Even before you get to the scores in the report, it shows what percentage of students come from schools that have banned phones. There doesn't seem to be any obvious correlation where banning phones from school gives better results. Eg Estonia averaged 520 points with 26% of students from schools that ban phones. 88.9% of students were in NZ schools where cellphones are banned, but NZ averaged 511 points.

I think before we start banning more "random" things we should consider whether these bans actually produce results. Let the countries that are making these changes run their banning experiment and the rest of us should wait and see whether their scores meaningfully improve afterwards.


Thanks Aerroon for sharing ! Banning social media is indeed an experiment and we don't know yet how efficient it will be.

Score results aren’t alone sufficient proof about whether a ban on phones in school is successful or not.

Phones also enable classroom distractions, waste teachers time, and enable antisocial behaviours kids like the engage such as bullying.


>Score results aren’t alone sufficient proof about whether a ban on phones in school is successful or not.

If the scores aren't increasing as a result of it, then why are we doing it? We're clearly not asking for legitimate input from the people who are actually impacted by these policies (students).

Also, everything "enables" bullying. Bullying is not a problem that's caused by things. It won't go away when you take the things away.


> then why are we doing it?

Re-read my initial comment.

> It won't go away when you take the things away.

You don't know what safeguarding and harm minimisation means, do you?


>You don't know what safeguarding and harm minimisation means, do you?

They're weasel words people use when their proposal doesn't actually work.

"It's totally making things better, you just can't see it in any objective stats."

Neither of those can be measured nor are they the reason we have schools in the first place. But they sound nice.


> They're weasel words people use when their proposal doesn't actually work.

No. They have concrete definitions that are just inconvenient for your argument. A+ in mental gymnastics though.


>Given the big gap between the east and the west

I thought the reason that China and Singapore were so far ahead of everyone else was that they were urban populations vs everyone else include rural areas.

I assumed that Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang were purely urban, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm very curious about this as well, because BSJZ is almost an entire proficiency level above (almost) everyone else. That's an insane gap.


>I once visited a radio station and they took their shoes off there too for some reason (no, I don't believe it was ESD related).

Isn't it reasonable/normal to take shoes off at work and put on indoor does like sandals or similar ("work shoes")? Obviously it depends on the job, but it seems reasonable to me at a radio station. And if the regular employees are wearing indoor shoes, then it might become normal for outdoor shoes to not be typically worn inside.


I don't have an opinion about whether it's reasonable, but in the U.S. I have never seen it. Maybe in a daycare. And people wear street shoes in many offices in Japan.

>I have a huge Steam backlog

Yeah, and by the time you get to many of those games they will feel clunky and outdated. It's not just the graphics that ages, but also the game mechanics, UI and UX, and the general presentation of the game. I would rather play Path of Exile than Diablo 2.

>I concede that that’s always been the case for durable written works thanks to the local library. But the scale of convenient supply now is staggerin.

I think even these written works go through "improvements". It's difficult to point out what is better about the more recently written stories, but somehow they are more appealing (in some aspects). Picking up an old book is harder than a new one if you're very familiar with a genre.


>Yeah, and by the time you get to many of those games they will feel clunky and outdated.

I don't agree with what you wrote literally (I almost exclusively play old and old-ish games, and I have fun), but:

>Path of Exile is a 2013 free-to-play action role-playing video game developed and published by Grinding Gear Games

I'm confused. Why is your example of a modern game is a game from 2013? Most people's backlog is probably shorter than 13 years, so if 13 year old games are fine then I'm not sure that contradicts OPs point.


He may have meant poe2; it came out last year? Then again the remaster of d2 was fairly recent and quite playable by my standards.


PoE is still getting new content 3 times per year, the dev is committed supporting both games for a long time.


PoE2 is still in early access, I feel it would be wrong to say that it is out until the makers claim that the product is ready to stand on its own two feet in the market

The analogy works if you know the comparison.

I mean, first, Diablo 2 did come out in 2000, 13 years before Path of Exile.

But also Path of Exile is maybe the game that has received the most updates and content of any game in existence (No Man's Sky looks stingy compared to Path of Exile, imo). It receives a small expansion's worth of content every ~4 months. Path of Exile in 2026 is an entirely different experience from Path of Exile in 2013.

I absolutely would not play the 2013 version today (and also am unable to because it's a live service game).

The better comparison would be Path of Exile 2, which came out last year or comes out later this year depending on your perspective on Early Access games, but it's less a 1:1 evolution of Diablo 2 and more its own thing.

I also like old games, but I grew up in the D2 era, so they hold nostalgia factor for me. There will always be games that stand out as classics, like Diablo 2 and Super Mario 64, but not many people play them who didn't already play them during their era, and even fewer people are going out of their way to play Titan Quest or Gex 64 for the first time in 2026.

Games do age, more so than books and movies, imo, because it's a younger medium and the technology keeps evolving.

As an aside, I also think entertainment industries are not saturated. I'm always hunting for recommendations that hit just the right spot, and so much is a miss for me. I'd love if there were 10 Path of Exiles to choose from, I'd play them all. (Hell, I'd be happy with just one quality Pokémon game...)


> It's difficult to point out what is better about the more recently written stories, but somehow they are more appealing (in some aspects)

For starters, the use of the language. Even a book written 20-30 years ago can feel a bit off in word choice and idioms. I know many people are into that, but for others it just increases the cognitive load of reading.


The purpose of reading is to challenge your mind, literally the cognitive load. If slang from 20 years ago is preventing you from reading a book, that’s a sign of mental laziness.

Many/most people don't read for a mental workout.

That's also a sign of mental laziness.

I thought that was always the point. A world without any copyright at all obviously doesn't function.


But we only have words for them. We don't have special symbols for them, kind of*

* Technically you could read "k" as a symbol for thousand, "M" for million, "B" for billion, and "T" for trillion.


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

Search: