dclowd9901
dclowd9901 on Hacker News
I think this "temperament" (or whatever you want to call it) _is_ actually a privilege, to be honest. If you have a family and you depend on things to go a certain way to keep your family from being out on the street, you _must_ consider the bads or possible bads of the world. You must allow yourself to be distracted by distractions so you can keep an eye on everything that affects you. To not do so is irresponsible and you put your family and your livelihood at risk.
If I'm sitting pretty on more income than I need with very few obligations, sure, I can just "focus on the path" and "ignore the distractions". But how many people have that luxury?
I feel like the big takeaway here isn't what's covered or not covered, but the percentages.
We have 3 companies claiming something like a $35T market for their services. The world's entire GDP is something like $126T. So 10% of the productive work that is done on this planet, that AI can actually perform makes up fully 1/4 of the entire world's economic output? best guesses for output solely of tech companies is something like $12T. Where are they getting these figures?
This would imply then that AI output is equally wortheless.
How much can you buy memory for?
This is a gleaming silver lining view. Blindingly so. The largest customers of the trades class are the white collar class. The largest customers of service industries are the white collar class. It _will_ be "the rich get poorer and the poor get poorer". This is a hollowing out and redistributing up of wealth, plain and simple.
It's the reason AI company leaders are so adamant about framing it as a post-singularity utopia with UBI. They have no answer other than "you're all going to be jobless, better figure that out." Worse yet, they see it merely as a policy problem, rather than a problem they're responsible for. It _is_ a policy problem, no doubt, but the angry mobs won't be coming for policy.
"They'd pay you nothing if they could."
I'll say this: I'm teaching myself every skill I can think of. I'm already pretty decent at finish carpentry, structural carpentry, electrical, mechanical work, HVAC, auto repair, auto body, welding and a few other less lucrative things.
I was thinking briefly I might want to go to law school, but who knows how much longer that's going to be a thing.
Can you show me how diverted nasa funding cured AIDS, directly?
Can you elaborate how this might be different than laws in Germany that disallow certain speech around white supremacy? Or laws that disallow violent rhetoric?
It's hard to imagine, since the moonlandings, if America kept its pace in space exploration, how far ahead of everyone else it would be, but also how far along everyone else would be. America was the catalyst for the impossible in that era, and then we decided to abandon it for... basically nothing. Enriching corporations, I guess?
People took issue with the cost of space exploration in context of "the good the money could do here on Earth", but then when we shifted resources that way, the money did absolutely no good here on Earth.
I don't think you've said anything different than the person you're responding to. The difference primarily seems to be whether you think AI is transformative vs simply being another tool (which is really just a matter of perspective).
If you're not an expert software engineer, it's transformative. If you are, it's just another tool.
Anymore I almost don't buy any IKEA stuff without intending some modification. I do woodworking as a hobby so it's nice to be able to skip all the rote stuff like building a large flat wooden surface or a square box or table legs. I can just focus on building a highly focused and functional piece of furniture for my space.
Clearly some folks here have never worked at Amazon before. It's genuinely terrifying to see what most of the internet runs on.
Still, it lowers the resolution of the results if you have to throw out a significant portion of the interviews.
> Whenever I see a claim that "x% of adults do y", my brain goes
Would that everyone employed this level of skepticism before commenting on figures.
Ah, guess I was conflating the two (they are quite similar after all). From their documentation (the link you posted):
> For untrusted repos, use a basic text editor instead.
Is that really our options here? How shitty.
This draws to mind the dialog that opens when you open a new project in Cursor (and VSCode too, I think), where the IDE asks the user if they trust the project they're opening. Is Cursor under the impression that this is sufficient security apparatus?
I'm always confused by these phrases:
> The new API cuts word error rate by 3.5 to 4x on the same audio: from 9.02% to 2.12% on clean speech
Shouldn't they have said "cuts error rate by 78%" or something?
Oh yeah, I think I alone have shared this article with a few dozen people.
Just more focused places to find it, I think. I loved the historical seafaring stories that DI would post, but then I realized that there were subject matter podcasts that dug into these stories even more. So I think it was just specialization taking over.
Admittedly, I haven't read DI in quite a while, but seeing this post brought back a flood of memories from my college days of waiting for the next article to drop. This blog was the precursor of an entire genre of "generally interesting shit" that has kind of underpinned most of the spirit of podcasting today. Shows like 99PI, Stuff You Should Know, RadioLab and so on owe I think a little something to this blog.
The amount asked for is meager, and I was more than happy to throw some bucks at it.
There is no such thing as a complete piece of information and it is unreasonable to expect every published piece of every bit of information to contain all required context to understand it. I'm not defending the Yale article's basic miss on the information, but rather your laziness on looking for more information when something came across your purview.
If someone said to you "hey, I heard they're pulling back on measuring ocean currents, isn't that shitty?" Would you get defensive and start yelling at them about not providing the "other side"? No, you'd say "whoa, I better figure out what's going on here" and make it a point to dig more, not sit there and bitch and moan about incomplete information. Yale.edu isn't a news service, it has no obligation to "both sides" a story for you.
Furthermore, what even would be the point of anyone regurgitating that hopeless pile of words the NSF's chief barfed out (apart from illustrating that's all they have as an explanation)? You mistakenly gave the administration the benefit of the doubt here when you really had no business doing so.
Or even the UN? That organization that this administration wants no part of...
https://archive.is/fZ9CN> Michael England, a spokesman for the National Science Foundation, said the decision to dismantle the network, known as the Ocean Observatories Initiative, “aligns with N.S.F.’s wider strategy to have a nimbler approach to prioritizing support for evolving scientific priorities and emerging technologies as well as a deliberate approach to smart life cycle management within its portfolio of research infrastructure.”
1) it's not hard to do your own research. If you're here, I assume you know how.
2) does that answer satisfy you? The bullshitty word salad doesn't surprise me. With this administration I expect incompetence and double speak and am rarely disappointed. I wonder why at this point in time you choose to give them so much leeway.
"Ingenuity" is what I think is missing. The sheer _want_ of solving a problem that is distinctly a living creature's concern.
The irony is if we ever taught machines how to have this, they'd probably not want to work for us anymore.
Nonsense. The goalpost is "this is as good as a senior engineer". A senior engineer can easily understand architectural rationale. Don't dismiss my argument because it's inconvenient to yours.
I'm not sure what your background is, but as a staff level engineer, I can assure you they do not. They in fact seem to lack any understanding of architectural intent within a sufficiently large code base. This seems obvious since they can't fit the entire code base in their context at once.
We have many folks (not engineers) at our company using LLMs to open PRs, and every one of these PRs has profound architectural design problems.
I've been using it mostly to bat away yak shaving rabbit holes one can get into when working on a large and complex project. I work mostly on platform work, which is generally nebulous in its feedback loop and testing. Relegating AI to refactoring and building tools to help me research keeps me focused on solving the actual main problem I'm trying to solve, reduces context switching. I really don't understand people who use it to bat out their main focus. I simply don't trust it at that level.
I see it as rude as well. The literal interpretation is: "your time is worth absolutely nothing to me."