12 ms·

> I didn't noticed the OP making any remark on the author's qualifications. Did you not read the first sentence of OP's post? "Ok, so basically she is a bulls

by adar 6y ago

> I didn't noticed the OP making any remark on the author's qualifications. Did you not read the first sentence of OP's post? "Ok, so basically she is a bullshit social engineer, masquerading as an 'AI ethics researcher'"

rualca 6y ago
If you take a step back and read the snippet you cherry-picked, I believe you'll be able to understand that it referred to how the author is trying to pass opinions on social engineering under the guise of research on AI ethics. That does not mean at all that the author lacks qualifications.
- threeseed 6y ago
  When you accuse someone of pretending to be an "AI ethics researcher" you are stating that they lack the qualifications to hold that title. Pretty obtuse to suggest otherwise.
  - rualca 6y ago
    > When you accuse someone of pretending to be an "AI ethics researcher" (...) You would do well to work on your literacy and reading comprehension skills. To start off, be aware that "a bullshit social engineer masquerading as a AI research" does not, by any means, mean the author is "pretending to be an AI researcher".
    - drawfloat 6y ago
      masquerade /ˌmɑːskəˈreɪd,ˌmaskəˈreɪd/ pretend to be someone one is not.
      - rualca 6y ago
        Let's look at the dictionary, shall we? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masquerade https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masquerade "an action or appearance that is mere disguise or show" As in social engineering masquerading as AI research? Honestly, is there any room for doubt at this stage? I don't expect honest and well-meaning people to continue insisting on this at this point. It feels that these attempts to distort what was said are simply attempts to attack the OP based on misreprentations of what he did said.
        adar 6y ago
        > If you take a step back and read the snippet you cherry-picked Cherry-picked? It's literally the first sentence, the central thesis of OP's entire "argument". If they can't get that down on paper correctly, they're not worth taking seriously. > You would do well to work on your literacy and reading comprehension skills. Ascribing unsubstantiated sentiments to someone's post in lieu of what they actually said doesn't fall under literacy or reading comprehension, sorry. It's actually the polar opposite of that. Why are you claiming to know OP's intentions (despite their own words) better than everyone else here? Is OP your alt account? > I don't expect honest and well-meaning people to continue insisting on this at this point. It feels that these attempts to distort what was said are simply attempts to attack the OP based on misreprentations of what he did said. It's extremely bizarre that you're questioning the literacy of people when you're projecting your own unsupported sentiment to OP's post while simultaneously claiming that people who are directly quoting the OP's post verbatim are "misrepresenting" what OP said. You're being very disingenuous here (as well as borderline manipulative) by trying to shut down any dissent against your flawed position by questioning the good faith of the people doing nothing but directly quoting the OP's words.
        cam_l 6y ago
        >If they can't get that down on paper correctly, they're not worth taking seriously. Amusingly, the OP got shirty at someone* further down this thread for calling them names, but with an unfortunate textual blunder which exposed the hypocrisy of their own name calling (not to mention total lack of self awareness). I pointed this out but got downvoted to oblivion of course. Classic goose / gander politics. * (and rightly so btw, that kind of conduct has no place on HN)
    - zimpenfish 6y ago
      Keen to understand what "masquerading as" is doing in that sentence if it's not meant to imply "pretending to be"?
      - rualca 6y ago
        > (...) if it's not meant to imply "pretending to be"? It means "social engineering pretending to be AI research", doesn't it? Think about it. Look at the context. Look at the people involved. Look at the topic of the discussion. And let's be honest for a second: do you personally believe that anyone would accuse an AI researcher who worked at Google of not being an AI researcher? Literacy matters, and so does honest and well meaning interpretations of what someone actually did said.

by adar 6y ago

rualca 6y ago

If you take a step back and read the snippet you cherry-picked, I believe you'll be able to understand that it referred to how the author is trying to pass opinions on social engineering under the guise of research on AI ethics. That does not mean at all that the author lacks qualifications.

threeseed 6y ago
When you accuse someone of pretending to be an "AI ethics researcher" you are stating that they lack the qualifications to hold that title. Pretty obtuse to suggest otherwise.
- rualca 6y ago
  > When you accuse someone of pretending to be an "AI ethics researcher" (...) You would do well to work on your literacy and reading comprehension skills. To start off, be aware that "a bullshit social engineer masquerading as a AI research" does not, by any means, mean the author is "pretending to be an AI researcher".
  - drawfloat 6y ago
    masquerade /ˌmɑːskəˈreɪd,ˌmaskəˈreɪd/ pretend to be someone one is not.
    - rualca 6y ago
      Let's look at the dictionary, shall we? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masquerade https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masquerade "an action or appearance that is mere disguise or show" As in social engineering masquerading as AI research? Honestly, is there any room for doubt at this stage? I don't expect honest and well-meaning people to continue insisting on this at this point. It feels that these attempts to distort what was said are simply attempts to attack the OP based on misreprentations of what he did said.
      - adar 6y ago
        > If you take a step back and read the snippet you cherry-picked Cherry-picked? It's literally the first sentence, the central thesis of OP's entire "argument". If they can't get that down on paper correctly, they're not worth taking seriously. > You would do well to work on your literacy and reading comprehension skills. Ascribing unsubstantiated sentiments to someone's post in lieu of what they actually said doesn't fall under literacy or reading comprehension, sorry. It's actually the polar opposite of that. Why are you claiming to know OP's intentions (despite their own words) better than everyone else here? Is OP your alt account? > I don't expect honest and well-meaning people to continue insisting on this at this point. It feels that these attempts to distort what was said are simply attempts to attack the OP based on misreprentations of what he did said. It's extremely bizarre that you're questioning the literacy of people when you're projecting your own unsupported sentiment to OP's post while simultaneously claiming that people who are directly quoting the OP's post verbatim are "misrepresenting" what OP said. You're being very disingenuous here (as well as borderline manipulative) by trying to shut down any dissent against your flawed position by questioning the good faith of the people doing nothing but directly quoting the OP's words.
        cam_l 6y ago
        >If they can't get that down on paper correctly, they're not worth taking seriously. Amusingly, the OP got shirty at someone* further down this thread for calling them names, but with an unfortunate textual blunder which exposed the hypocrisy of their own name calling (not to mention total lack of self awareness). I pointed this out but got downvoted to oblivion of course. Classic goose / gander politics. * (and rightly so btw, that kind of conduct has no place on HN)
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    Keen to understand what "masquerading as" is doing in that sentence if it's not meant to imply "pretending to be"?
    - rualca 6y ago
      > (...) if it's not meant to imply "pretending to be"? It means "social engineering pretending to be AI research", doesn't it? Think about it. Look at the context. Look at the people involved. Look at the topic of the discussion. And let's be honest for a second: do you personally believe that anyone would accuse an AI researcher who worked at Google of not being an AI researcher? Literacy matters, and so does honest and well meaning interpretations of what someone actually did said.