i’ve noticed in the last month that HN discourse has improved- which i’m super glad for. this thread is a good example of lots of you seeing thru the hyperbole/rhetoric! one of the remaining errors that people make is sort of assuming ai as it is today or even last year is what ai will be 5 years from now. well, it’s going to get a whole lot better and i’m curious to see what that will enable. and although there is lots of fear about how the owners of the models will steer peoples’ world view, i see more of the basal views improving dramatically. what i mean is, people are educating themselves on fundamentals more efficiently and cutting through a lot of the bull that would otherwise lead them to scam or hype or… driven decisions. every once in a while i watch daytime tv and get blown away by the drivel and think, who would watch/be moved by this! that part of our society needs to die fast but it’s still here- it’s sort of forgotten, at least to me, but it probably is more impactful than we’d like to believe. so i’m encouraged by sort of what i would call death to bull and a cleaner path to decently synthesized knowledge.
on the top end, it’s the enablement of dreams where previously a business is paperwork not the actual business of making and improving the sold product or experience. i look forward to seeing what people who are newly enabled will bring to the world.
this was written with at least the help of ai- it’s still a good article and idk if i’m the only one who can tell or we’re beyond the point of needing or wanting or caring to point it out. idk
I was trying to ignore the classic tells of LLM writing, but I still find them irksome when reading an otherwise informative article. There is just too much fluff in the language
Yes I'd happily buy one if it's quality matched the price and I'm sure in Japan it often does.
I have done some simple leather crafts, and I think the design clearly is suitable for building with rivets and full grain leather, if they do use that today then it'll be a spectacular product.
“we”? i think it’s damn obvious that it’s not “we”. the world doesn’t get to move together until all differences are resolved, is that the progress you think we’ve made in the last 100 years? I don’t understand how talk like this goes unchallenged so often. it’s fine aspirationally but come on! I look at a growing economy like a bicycle, the slower it goes the less stable it is. in other words, you can’t just stop unless you want mass death or you want to transition to a stabilizing mechanism the world is yet unaware of. I would also suggest we don’t foolishly bully human nature with policy- there is a certain and deep injustice to that.
Life’s motto is to grow. asking it to not grow or to greatly hamper it? its outrageous really, especially without a genius respectable path to get there.
i don’t mind aspiration because dreaming is good but this one is a bit tired and uncontested.
and just so i’m not just complaining, i’ll suggest that people stop trying to be dubious global citizens in problem space that outstrips their capabilities and work to be better stewards of one’s self, family, friends. support /relatively/ steady growth.
Growing the economy is not "like a bicycle, the slower it goes the less stable it is."
See everything from ancient Egypt to Soviet-style Communism. Periods of time in Ancient Rome would fit in too. The problem with those -- except for a repressive political system -- was that we could not produce enough to satisfy everyone's basic needs.
Today, we can.
Much of the US-style growth is driven precisely by instability. The system feeds on debt. That forces stress. That forces growth. That also means one cannot be "better stewards of one’s self, family, friends."
And so far, no one has explained how "we don’t foolishly bully human nature with policy." Legal and economic frameworks guide what humans do; that's either something we think through and engineer, or it gets engineered for us by market forces, but it's there anyway.
The most freedom-preserving policy isn't a command system, but it's not a pure market system either. And for stability, we can contrast stable economies to boom-and-bust cycles and successful democracies to the very many failed market-economy democracies across e.g. Africa and South America.
“…good enough”
and why is it that we can’t be a part of the planet’s ecology? it must have happened when we exceeded the beaver and ascended.
there’s a cake joke in this somewhere but i’d rather just suggest it than wait for the joke to come to me.
i’ve often thought that less than one second is all you need.One of my fun super powers when someone asks what i’d like to have is 1 second ahead of everyone else- that’s all i need. i honest don’t know where the distillation conversation is at. is it real, is it ongoing? i think that aspect would big one. Your point is valid if it’s valid. i’m not a great global citizen, you know, lots going on out and about.
A lot of distillation happens. E.g. OLMo models have a completely open dataset and they are heavily distilled. It only makes sense to try to absorb behaviors from the best models out there. That said, I think the open weight juggernaughts are doing really genuinely great work with RL, training environments, architectural innovations etc.
Thanks for the response. i had too many noodles tonight and forgot to check my writing. I’m a rare generalist and so it is so very hard to keep up with this without saying “better autocomplete” my one goal is to not get washed out like my parents did in the great username and password wars.
i used to have this theory about knowledge in society/silos and i likened it to condensation on a window. you have all this water so close to each other and yet not touching-then, something happens and a bead runs down the window and it all connects. i guess distillation reminds me of it but ai overall reminds me of it. because we all know there are silos and complementary info just waiting to run together and make something happen. I am undoubtedly a naive optimist and believe there are good things coming. it’s not a popular opinion and i think that’s mostly because people would rather spend their time guarding than defining their future.
oh baby, there are more noodles in the fridge and to think i almost left them at the restaurant.
Programming is hard, even for someone who has an interest in it. i know some c# just for selenium work- honestly im quite terrible and have too little concentration or innate skill to get anywhere. i’ve made attempts but they fizzle. Those barriers of esoteric knowledge are folding like card castles now. would it be helpful to understand perfectly the underlying principles, heck yeah, but i want to see my visions for different programs come to life! apps that i believe don’t exist. I sincerely don’t mean it as jab to the author but programmers tend to be rigid thinkers and it’s totally practical to do PoC on golf but yeah, rigid thinking doesn’t always result in novelty. let’s let things play out and see what happens when this sort of capability reaches other creatives/types of people. and as the tools strengthen and expand.
i believe i threw a slide ruler in the trash recently. i stopped reading as soon as they said something about a c position. i’d rather have a digital scale- so many fewer measuring cups/spoons used, just do the addition in your head or tare as you add additional ingredients.
i bought a bottle from cvs. 60 gummies each 5 mg. my kid was having trouble sleeping and these worked like a sledghammer, it was great! also comical, knowing the dose was way too high, i would slice the pinky-fingernail-sized gummy into 10 tiny pieces. “do you want this gummy?” “can i have more?” “no” “do you still want the little piece” “yes”. so then she would try to make it last by sort of licking it or just taking it in and out of her mouth and it would get lost of forgotten- funny business.
anyway, we dropped off the use of the sledgehammer precipitously as we wanted her to develop her own sleep skills and avoid any of these lesser known potentially negative effects. we still keep the (lifetime supply)tool in our back pocket for rare occasions, like traveling.
Tesla’s current products are similar to older failed products from other manufacturers. Tesla’s future products are similar to older failed products from other manufacturers. Tesla’s current products are largely profitable.
Just exactly why are we bashing on attempts to bring products to market?
I will say i view the “lies” as woefully aspirational but not malicious in intent. and i do think the lines can blur. but i’d rather have cool new things and a few fools fooled benevolently than, for instance, no true EV market.
