A group of people with varying views can still exhibit bias towards one particular direction. The fact that the individuals within the group have distinct personalities does not eliminate this effect.

One of Dang's comments mentions that he removed some of the other rules because they are already embedded within the HN culture. Other prevailing views exist within the HN culture too. Maybe you just haven't noticed yet.

"A flock of sheep is not a single entity, but a group made up of distinct individuals", the sheep yells to onlookers, as it runs, with the rest off the flock in tow, off the edge of the cliff, and into the sea below.

How can HN be so pro-AI for the rest of the world, but anti-AI on HN?

Do we not think that other people want to see words, pictures, software, and videos created by humans too?

> good generated AI images that aren't wholesale copying take like less than 10% from the original source.

So would the model work if it only trained on the top 10% of pixels in every image? Or do they in fact need the entire image before they begin processing it, and therefore use the entire image?

> In addition, the idea that you need to pay rent on your observation of someone else's work is absurd.

I agree that's absurd. But training a model is no more "observing images" than an F1 car is "walking" down a race track. Just because a race car uses kinetic energy, gravity, and friction to propel itself, the same way a human does, doesn't mean it's doing the same thing as a human. That comparison you're making is the real absurdity.

No I didn't. It's use in a software product without my permission. That's never been allowed.

Just because you obfuscate what's happening by calling it "learning" and pretending your model is actually just looking at pictures the same as a human, doesn't make it true.