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'"
That does not mean at all that the author lacks qualifications.
Pretty obtuse to suggest otherwise.
pretend to be someone one is not.
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.
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.
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)
Your argument sounds like a red herring. Qualified for what? I didn't noticed the OP making any remark on the author's qualifications.
And by the way, you should think things through before pulling appeals to authority to try to defend the credibility of researchers. See James Watson, a nobel laureate and a founder of modern genetics, and his comments on race and gender.