Regardless, I think my "policing" of the title was entirely justified. Phrasing it this way, while arguably a normal use of English, is clearly intended to play into a fear-mongering frame. If I'm "turned into" a chatbot that connotes something happening to me, which in turn is used to justify the appeal to consent.

But it's nowhere established that the existence of an AI chatbot modeled on a person, somehow harms the modeled person. Instead, we just get to read about the moral outrage of various people quoted for the article. To the extent that any harm is demonstrated, it doesn't arise from the actual simulation, but from defamation of character due to inaccuracies in the simulation.

I was trying not to read the article exactly because the title and URL slug prepared me to expect more or less exactly what I saw there. Now I've had to read it just to justify my prejudice. Ugh.

The point is not that it was a good title, it's that you should not respond to a bad title with a bad HN comment. ("Good" and "bad" in this context mean, to a first approximation, in accordance (or not) with the HN guidelines.)

If you had posted a version of this comment instead (i.e. your second comment, which I'm currently replying to), that would of course have been fine.

Btw this is a case of the 'rebound' phenomenon*, which is that often people respond to a moderation comment with the best, most compelling and precise description of what they were originally thinking. It's a pity we can't get those in the first place! On HN it's good to pause before posting anything snarky, ranty, etc., until you** can access that information and then post it instead.

* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

** I don't mean you personally, of course, but all of us.

It's one thing to have read the guidelines; quite another to appreciate them through experience. Thanks for the pointers.

Thanks for the kind reply!