bricemo

I view this as they are trying to lay bare the disagreements that everyone has about how these models “should” work. People from all different backgrounds and political affiliations completely disagree on what is inappropriate and what is not. One person says it is too censored, another person says it is revealing harmful information. By putting the policy out there in the open, they can move the discussion from the code to a societal conversation that needs to happen.

Does this also use generative AI to create the results?

How do you know you are the first discoverer? Does it highlight this in some way?

This is exactly right. I used to think that execs were like “Super ICs” who knew everything under them. As I’ve moved up in my career I’ve been amazed to find that execs do not know all the details of what’s happening or where the problems are. They are human just like the rest of us, and someone else’s problem is not obvious. They need to be told in a meeting or in writing so they can help fix it.

I don’t really understand how this would work. Classified information seems like a law of human nature as long as there is competition: trade, geopolitical, military.

As a metaphor imagine if a game like chess required zero classified information: every move you make you need to disclose all your thinking and future moves to your opponent. You would be at a disadvantage.

We need to be both celebrating wins and working harder to improve further. There’s lots to do but this is encouraging to me that it’s possible to reach better outcomes.

Let’s keep bending the curve!

Many managers and senior directors were also laid off.

I grew up in this tiny town of Chester, Virginia and moved to Silicon Valley after college. Seeing this factory and my hometown at the top of Hacker News is blowing my mind.

I had a new years resolution to do a similar practice for writing code. At least 30 minutes per day every night. It's been by far my most prolific year of all time

Agreed! I, probably like many HN readers, tend to over-optimize every part of my life. But life is more than optimization for an output — sometimes the purpose is just the pure joy and fun of doing it. Projects like this are a great reminder.

I am also trying to figure out what the average person would do differently with this information. It is cool and good, but I feel like if I wanted to experience any of these I would still go buy on Amazon Prime video or pull it up on Spotify or torrent. Is there a big change in consumer experience?

What in the movie was false?

I would highly recommend the book by Cal Newport, so good they can’t ignore you. It lays out a framework for developing rare and valuable job skills that you can use to navigate a fast changing tech landscape. It has been immensely helpful to me and a great guide for how to navigate sea changes like this over decades

But humans thousands of years ago made decisions that make our lives today possible. Aren’t you glad that you had the chance to exist and enjoy your own life?

I highly recommend Ian McCaskill‘s recent book “ what we owe the future.” He makes a compelling rational argument that it makes no less sense to discount future generations than it does to discount physically distant people who are suffering today.

I agree. 1 billion years is a lot of research and development time. It only took us a few hundred years to go from agricultural society to spacefaring. 10 million X that amount of progress and we can either fix the sun, move the earth, or repopulate on other stars. This will be a non-issue.

No this is an actual AI.

If you look out long-term, 2030s and 2040s, this is where all of this is likely going.

Right now the pool of content you might be interested in is constrained to all the content that has been made. But there may be better content that does not exist yet that you would be even more interested in. The future is going to be very weird, but also very entertaining

Right, this is an incredible clever headline. I visualized a ship, screaming at the top of their lungs, but sinking just before getting within earshot

I think the unique potent combination is worldwide real-time sample set (there is always something awful happening somewhere) + optimized yellow journalism (clickbait outrage headlines with metrics).

This combination is the difference between recognizing a problem and doing something about it as you describe (which is certainly a good thing), versus just feeling overwhelmed and sinking into stressful anxiety.

Agree. This study is assuming the intent of the feature is to remove those types of videos. In reality the intent is to use it as one of many signals to make better ML recommendations. Oftentimes, there are also differences in revealed and stated preferences.

Right, I think this is world’s tallest website, not world’s highest

It’s not “making people suffer”. It is having high expectations for performance that A-players and teams can easily hit. If companies are going to survive during a crisis time when the whole world is facing headwinds, there is no margin for error, at FB or anywhere.

Layoffs are always awful, they take jobs away from people without them having a say. They should always be a last resort.

This is exactly what they are doing with one improvement: instead of firing, they are allowing attrition to happen naturally. That’s better than layoffs

I think the larger takeaway is that the level of protection needs to scale up with the value of the contents, and he unfortunately did not keep up. The value of those games has gone into the millions recently, so this setup was not sufficient anymore to withstand the level of attack.

For example, if what you have moves into hundreds of millions of dollars (not the case here) then any safe is no longer sufficient, you need to move to a vault and armed guards.

Take the ego, judgment, and “how things should be” out of it. This is about how to effectively get results as the sender. And it works.

We all have this choice of principle versus effectiveness. If you would like to go with the strategy of thinking the receiver is self-centered, and you should have to only send one email, then good luck. In today’s world you will not have as effective a reply conversion rate as someone else who sends three emails.

I know this is controversial, so everyone is free to attempt the first strategy.

I have always had a similar train of thought around zombie apocalypse fiction. If there was a mass zombie outbreak it would be totally solved within five years. Houses would be reinforced with zombie proof doors and walls. Weapons would be available for purchase that are tested as most affective against zombies. Roads would have guard rails and zombie proof walls to keep them out. It would slowly transform from a crisis to a nuisance like wild animals. There’s no reason it would continue going on year after year

Same. If today is my last day, I am sure as hell not going to work (even though I love my career). I am driving to have a huge party and spend every minute with my family.

My conclusion has been to not take the time scale literally. I find it useful to act as though I only have 3 years left. That’s a good timescale to have life operate properly, but also realize you need to make hard choices sooner rather than later.

Agree. This article is saying Head content is still king. That is true. But The Long Tail wasn’t necessarily about the long tail being bigger than head. It was that long tail was viable at all.

I don’t see how anyone can argue against there being more choice than ever before across all sectors of products and content.

I love how this follows the TED talk playbook:

1: “Here is a thing you are all familiar with”

2: “What if we thought about it DIFFERENTLY?”

3: “Here is the new yet intuitive way to think about it”

4: (Applause. Audience leaves with a easy-to-understand story to tell at cocktail parties)

Great work, and very cool lock.