alt Hacker News> It just goes on like this. No argument, just mockery. Doesn't address any of the statements, just jeers at them
Yes, because the point of the article is that these are things rational every-day people recognize as being worthy of mockery.
If the author needs to explain to you why not knowing your own address is foolish, how handing your child an AI instead of spending time with them is bad, then you aren't going to get the rest of the thesis. As the author puts it, you've passed the test, you're part of the cult of personality.
Replies
> Yes, because the point of the article is that these are things rational every-day people recognize as being worthy of mockery.
If people recognize something as being worthy of mockery and they are also aware of the situation, they gain nothing from reading some tripe that provides zero new information.
Also, a blog post shouldn't assume that all readers have seen the interview in question. What's the value of talking nonsense about something the readers have never been informed about? At most, the rational readers would be disgusted by the attempt to influence their opinion before they'd seen the facts.
> If the author needs to explain to you why not knowing your own address is foolish,
Well, the readers may not know that the mocked person doesn't know his own address, so when the author doesn't explain it, the author is the foolish one.
If the readers know the facts, mocking someone for trivialities without pointing out some novel reasons "why" is double foolish.
So this is a post criticizing that Jensen doesn't know his address and somehow this is bad and something to do with AI
I think if you create a Test in order to cast out anyone who doesn't approach a topic the way you do, that kind of sneering creates a brittle purity spiral, as well as the kind of worse thinking that this is supposed to be inoculating you against.