Ragebait comment for sure, but not everyone lives in some bubble where $14/months is spare change and anyway the fact that even a philosophical wall of text on why paying for something so fundamental like not getting spammed with retarded unksippable ads on a 20 second video, (or even worse getting one in the middle of a concerto movement) would not convince, makes further engagement unworthy. It's pretty appalling to note that not a single comment so far brought up the affordability issue.
> If everyone makes noise about how the other side hasn't quieted down yet so they won't the only outcome is it gets ever louder
Yes, we shouldn't be pointing out the low-value content and enshittification brought upon by this superior technology, or even question why isn't research focused on addressing challenges like disease and poverty eradication, cause we bring more attention to any potential negative aspects, which are obviously very minimal and exaggerated. We should just accept dogmata about having to reconcile with the idea that humans have eventually lost in some absurd creativity/imagination race against the superior AGI machines and it's perfectly reasonable having negative IQ CEOs laying off thousands because AI does their job "better" (costs cheaper) than them. I'm sure paying no attention and magically letting it die on its own is the solution. Just like it has historically happened with other subjects like phrenology, scientific racism, antisemitism etc.
What are you even doing here, enjoy another trite useless application offered to you as another breakthrough that I'm obviously responsible for having 1.5K upvotes cause I can't shut up.
Why would you postulate these two to be mutually exclusive?
> then fault them for being good at helping people solve puzzles or win trivia games
They only help them in the same sense that a calculator would 'help' win at a hypothetical mental math competition, that is the gist; robbing people of the creative and mentally stimulating processes that make the game(s) fun. But I've come to realize this is an unpopular opinion on this website where being fiercely competitive is the only remarkable personality trait, so I guess yeah it may be useful for this particular population.
As of 1763032813 the current GPT5.1 has amassed a significant amount of comments to be considered low volume. Sadly I only see my suspicions being confirmed but yeah I'll play along with the HN is the best corner of the Internet narrative.
[Someone from the moderation team care to explain the reasoning behind flagging this comment?]
Your judgement concerning the state of the website since the release of GPT3 is flawed. Just take a look at the amount of comments on non-AI topics like the current one. Not counting yours truly, it's a very low volume conversation for a website for the discussion of stories that are intellectually interesting.
[Someone from the moderation team care to explain the reasoning behind flagging this comment?]
Characterizing as grossly inappropriate the statement of the reality of the monopoly on research funding on useless -as of now- AI and not even addressing the initial point is very telling of your dedication to VC brainwashing.
The whole frontpage has been infested with LLM BS for a very long time with absurd claims about it being of landing-on-the-moon levels of breakthrough yet here you are claiming the ones pointing out this fact are the problem.
And what's the end result? All one can see is just bigger representation of those who confidently subscribe to false information and become arrogant when their validity is questioned, as the LLM writing style has convinced them it's some sort of authority. Even people on this website are so misinformed to believe that ChatGPT has developed its own reasoning, despite it being at the core an advanced learning algorithm trained on a enormous amount of human generated data.
And let's not speak about those so deep into sloth that put it into use to deteriorate, and not augment as they claim to do, humane creative recreational activities.
Honestly this (the fact it is being massively upvoted) looks a lot more like paid promotion. Not the first time and not the only example of submission btw.
If one were to only go by the number of comments this thread has ended up amassing, you'd reckon they would consist of endless wandering mental gymnastics about semantics, iamverysmart suppositions that the statement in the title is just a coping mechanism of those not intellectually gifted and certainly some thinly veiled scientific racism.
IMO, "unhappy smart" people are more likely to be described as those belonging to privileged social classes and backgrounds that were able to afford premium tutoring and education, so they ended up at places that provide opportunities and connections to the most powerful of the economic elite. The latter's influence on societal perceptions have of course helped the aforementioned category become a role model for those that do not possess the same privileges, on the deceitful pretense that this all is a result of superior raw mental capacity.
The unhappy part could be multifaceted; apart from being able to essentially buy elite institutional credentials, they're being indoctrinated at an early age about the importance of maintaining the status quo and being penalized if they deviate to any degree. Hence they may be suffering from some sort of transgenerational trauma that has shaped them to tie their worth to a narrow set of things, most usually occupational prestige and amount of wealth. When their environment consists of people of similar backgrounds but varying levels of social achievement, it's expected that they'd feel inferiority if they come across someone more accomplished (whose "accomplishment" almost always ends up meaning choosing the even-more-right parents), even if they already belong to the top ladder on the social hierarchy.
> Dr Bloom spoke about how your overall mood during college is a good predictor for how happy you'll be as a person throughout your life. He talked about the optimum time to get married is 26. He elucidated the idea of your prefrontal cortex solidifying around 25, making personality changes MUCH more difficult.
Some of this sounds more like ideology and less science, especially when deterministic tendencies are getting mixed up when talking about psychology.
> Everything I've learned from psychology (and by this I mean watching psychology lectures from Yale and Stanford
Also interesting that sensationalized statements always end up coming from places like that, exclusively pertaining to the rotten individualist lifestyle in the United States.