I was enjoying this article but when you got to the importance of character, asking ChatGPT to define it seemed - at least to me - a bit of a cop-out. Would have liked more personal perspective there.
As a counterpoint, isn't it implied that the person has read what ChatGPT wrote and by forwarding it, agrees that it's a roughly similar phrasing of their feelings on the issue? One would hope so, anyway.
Indeed that's what I thought, but I think it's fair to say, "I don't want to read ChatGPT's answers."
More precisely, I did get lazy and think, "well, I don't know what he meant, exactly, but he'd probably pick out one or two of these points, at least. ChatGPT tends to include everything, including the kitchen sink."
If you're an expert in X and I'm not, you can easily google "intro to X" and skim the first handful of pages and send me the best one. This is the same idea IMHO.
Telling me that ChatGPT's answer is not horribly wrong could be a very useful data point.
I spent a lot of time on the rest of it. For this part, I didn't think I had anything particular to say about "character" that wouldn't take me days to compose, and might not be what Blakey meant by it anyway.
Albert's comment wasn't about himself, but about an article he wrote that I found quite relevant to the Miles Davis article.
He compares Miles' onstage behavior when another musician is soloing with Art Blakey's very different approach.
It's worth reading them both, and I am glad they were both called to my attention.
To answer your question about why it's at the top of the comment thread, I'm sure you already know the answer: multiple people like myself found it interesting and upvoted it.
> Why is the top ranking comments in this thread not even about the original article?
In short: Because it got the most upvotes.
Sounds trivial but there is a deeper point to it. "Top comment" isn't about who gave the most praise or the harshest crisicism or the best summary or the most controversial take on the topic. It's about what the collective HN hivemind found was moving the conversation forward in the most interesting way. That's what's getting upvoted. If that happens to have mentioned another article, well, so be it.
It does seem a little lazy and jarring to quote from ChatGPT, but technically is much the same as if he had added a named quote directly: "Merriam-Webster dictionary defines character as.." or "Albert Camus once said that character is..."
