Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | kbrkbr's commentslogin

I switched 25 years ago.

Still, every computer I buy comes with Microsoft tax and their OS preinstalled. In all these years I always left a small Windows partition, in case I need it. Never booted it.


I had the same impression. Whatever it is about, it is not about

> Why The Great Gatsby is the world's most misunderstood novel

The first thought I had when reading the headline was: by what measure?

I wanted to give the benefit of doubt, but there is not even an attempt to answer the question set out at the beginning.

Instead, like you say, somewhat of an advertisment for later derivations with no clear idea of where to go.

For me underwhelming.


> Removing CO2 from the air is a pipe dream for several obvious reasons.

For me at least both your arguments are not obvious.

There are a lot of things that are harder to put in the atmosphere than to remove them. Stones for example.

The second one is less of an argument, but rather a question. Why not the UN, the US, China, or Europe?


The original opiate for the people criticism was leveled against religion by Karl Marx:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people



Very often misquoted as being a blunt attack on religion, but people often just cut out the second half of the quote --

"opiate of the masses... heart of the heartless world"

Marx was despairing at the heartlessness of the condition of working class people in industrial slums, people one generation or less removed from the flight from rural landless dispossession and starvation into the polluted cities and factories and tiny apartments in slums in search of survival. He saw religion as one tool people used to salve the pain, to reduce the suffering.

Far more complicated than "religion bad, we should ban it, mmkay"

There's probably an analogy here around the "attention economy" and "social media."

Look for root causes. If you turn everything and everyone into a commodity -- "market yourself!" -- don't be surprised when the consumptive model takes over all consciousness.

The commodity form is the [post|hyper]modern religion.


... This is relevant how?


I found it interesting, etymology of the phrase


I enjoyed this article and think it's good advice, and I also think that the punchline (title + last sentence) is wrong. Not that it makes a big difference, I just treasure texts more that I feel the author thought through to the last detail.

If you don't design your career, in most cases I guess no one will. In the comments are good examples, like the random walk of the drunken sailor. The cases in which you could use the phrase "someone else designed it for me" in a meaningful way seem rather rare to me.


Stock buying as a political or ethical statement is not much of a thing. For one the stocks will still be bought by persons with less strung opinions, and secondly it does not lend itself well to virtue signaling.


I think, meme stocks contradict you.


Meme stocks are a symptom of the death of the American dream. Economic malaise leads to unsophisticated risk taking.


Well, two things lead to unsophisticated risk-taking, right... economic malaise, and unlimited surplus. Both conditions are easy to spot in today's world.


unlimited surplus does not pass the sniff test for me


I had exactly the same impression.


I gave the author a bit more benefit, made it through the part where he describes how some guys impressed him by talking in a way that sounded smart, straight to the interjection that many people subscribed to his whatever in the last years.

Then finally I was convinced enough that this did not sound in any way like what I think intelligently articulated communication sounds, and I also gave up.


As is the sample in this article. You will surely find as many physicists saying earth is flat, mathematicians who hold that Cantor was wrong, and medical doctors that tell you vaccination against measles is overall worse than not.


I have also a hard time understanding how AGI will magically appear.

LLMs have their name for a reason: they model human language (output given an input) from human text (and other artifacts).

And now the idea seems to be that when we do more of it, or make it even larger, it will stop to be a model of human language generation? Or that human language generation is all there is to AGI?

I wish someone could explain the claim to me...


Because the first couple major iterations looked like exponential improvements, and, because VC/private money is stupid, they assumed the trend must continue on the same curve.

And because there's something in the human mind that has a very strong reaction to being talked to, and because LLMs are specifically good at mimicking plausible human speech patterns, chatGPT really, really hooked a lot of people (including said VC/private money people).


LLMs aren't language models, but are a general purpose computing paradigm. LLMs are circuit builders, the converged parameters define pathways through the architecture that pick out specific programs. Or as Karpathy puts it, LLMs are a differentiable computer[1]. Training LLMs discovers programs that well reproduce the input sequence. Roughly the same architecture can generate passable images, music, or even video.

It's not that language generation is all there is to AGI, but that to sufficiently model text that is about the wide range of human experiences, we need to model those experiences. LLMs model the world to varying degrees, and perhaps in the limit of unbounded training data, they can model the human's perspective in it as well.

[1] https://x.com/karpathy/status/1582807367988654081


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: