HN is a place where you typically post links to sources that support your claim. We could all Google it (or ChatGPT it), but we may not come out with the same results. Why not post your sources so that we can discuss a common set of evidence?
HN is also a place that is intended to be a place that promotes intellectual curiosity rather than argument. When the evidence is this extensive and easily accessible, the decision to argue about it reflects intransigence and an unwillingness to be curious.
I genuinely don’t care about being right on the Internet or HN karma, I would be genuinely happy if one reader/participant in this argument came out of it thinking “huh, I can actually do better than this.”
The good folks here have absolutely demonstrated intellectual curiosity - that's what all the requests for prompt details and links are. Your refusal to simply provide them, especially after opening with what boils down to "ChatGPT told me...", and choice to get all smug and self-righteous when pressed, does not imply that you actually have the best handle on HN culture.
When you write hundreds of words to avoid typing twelve or so into a search engine, you’re not pursuing intellectual curiosity. I’m happy to die on this hill because it’s so completely absurd, and because I’m curious about what pathology is causing people even to argue about this.
