Hacker News
points by soraminazuki 3 hours ago | 0 comments
I already read your reply. You didn't just ask a question. You asked a rhetorical question. Very different things.

> Sorry, I don't understand what is the "hypothetical demand" you identified in my comment you replied to? ... If you think that is BS and its all hypothetical, you quite simply just don't know what you are talking about.

"You quite simply just don't know what you are talking about" is not a question. It's denial of a very real issue. It's no secret that Anthropic and co. are currently depriving others of resources based on speculative future demand. It's not current demand that's already being served. It's future demand. And they're threatening human extinction if they don't have their way. How much imaginary future demand justifies such deprivation? At that point, who is all of this even for?

Or by "question," are you referring to this:

> Just seems like you wanted to find a way to bring this back to a previous bubble and call me a scammer simply for not being anti-AI.

The exact same straw man rephrased, also not a question.

> You are just letting emotion control you

Says the person repeatedly calling people mental.

> I was calling you a literal bot for bringing up politics out of nowhere

The insane amount of resources being allocated to LLM datacenters was one of the deciding factors in the outcome of the election. People wanted change, the precise thing you accused me of being against. You invited that discussion.

Furthermore, you call me a "bot" for bringing up this point, saying it's "irrelevant." Calling that dismissal of human suffering for what it is isn't "extrapolation."

I clarified what the grift is in every single one of my replies, and you refuse to even acknowledge the issue of resource deprivation and instead made it about being pro-progress or anti-progress. Don't pretend like that's a good-faith discussion.

[–] weird-eye-issue 2 hours ago
You need help.

By questions I was referring to my sentences that ended with a question mark that you ignored several comments back. None of them were rhetorical. I like that you are selectively quoting statements I made and saying they aren't questions. No shit. My questions were questions. That is why there are question marks. Maybe you can ask Claude to identify them for you.

AI companies can barely meet current demand. I don't know why you think all the demand is hypothetical but that's on you. You'd have to have your head in the sand to think this. They are collectively processing hundreds of billions of tokens per minute if you bothered to research it. That's not future demand, that's current.

Good luck, you'll need it.

[–] soraminazuki 19 minutes ago
Since you clearly don’t know what a rhetorical question is, I’ll help you out. Putting a question mark at the end of a sentence doesn’t make it a sincere question. If you’ve answered a question all by yourself right after “asking,” it’s without doubt a rhetorical question. Turns out Claude didn’t help you be correct here, just like when you mocked another commenter for using a totally legit English word.

Also, you think you need Claude to do ctrl-f? No wonder you have such a visceral reaction to the idea of placing limits on LLM resource usage. And that, by the way, is a rhetorical question, even though I put a question mark on it.

You appear to suffer from a cognitive dissonance so severe that you’re no longer able to comprehend the concept of time or numbers. Or even the difference between all and some.

Much of the resources being seized by these companies aren’t being used to serve live requests yet. Your claim that it’s serving current demand is a logical impossibility. It’s future demand.

And you refuse to even contemplate this at all, but what on earth justifies depriving people of resources they need to live? People being denied access to everything from RAM, electricity, natural resources, land, and money has consequences. But the only thing you’ve shown care for is the interest of LLM providers. You lash out against any criticism of their actions by calling people mental over and over.

You need a good hard look at yourself in the mirror, because that behavior is what most people would consider abhorrent.