Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jeri Ellsworth and the Robot Uprising of 2038

blog.robertelder.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: Jeri Ellsworth and the Robot Uprising of 2038

#41

Post by whatshisface »

tw1010 wrote: post #39
njharman wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is how people are. We are not identical, interchangeable cogs. Most people can be trained to do simple things in most any field. But brilliance is innate. Its not learnt and can't be made through hard work. Some people have analytical minds some don't.

I'm pretty good at what I do, and when people tell me they're jealous of my talent, and kind of hint that it's innate, I get a bit insulted. I had to work a shitton to get where I am, and comments like that makes it sound like I had it easy.

The reality is probably a mix of both.

Re: Jeri Ellsworth and the Robot Uprising of 2038

#42

Post by chrissam »

tw1010 wrote: post #11
sebringj wrote: post #5

Crazy genius. This is an example of someone born to do something.

I know that's just supposed to be a complement, but sometimes that kind of a comment contributes to people thinking there's such a thing as a "math person" (or a "non math person"). Having comments like that thrown around in the aether makes it seem like technical subjects have "you either have it or you don't" characteristics, which I think most people on HN know is BS. I prefer to emphasize hard work over any kind…

My experience is that "you either have it or you don't" is more accurate than not.

> I'm pretty good at what I do, and when people tell me they're jealous of my talent, and kind of hint that it's innate, I get a bit insulted. I had to work a shitton to get where I am, and comments like that makes it sound like I had it easy.

This is a common sentiment, but I don't find it convincing. The discussion here is about nature vs. nurture. There's a lot of data points on that subject, and, from what I've seen, they mostly support nature (twin studies, intelligence being 60-80% heritable, etc).

The fact that you like to think it's mostly nurture isn't really relevant. I'd like to live in a world where ability and virtue were absolutely correlated and everyone got what he or she deserves based on how much good that person does in the world. But I don't think we live in that world.

Re: Jeri Ellsworth and the Robot Uprising of 2038

#43

Post by hoaw »

sebringj wrote: post #29
tw1010 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that's just supposed to be a complement, but sometimes that kind of a comment contributes to people thinking there's such a thing as a "math person" (or a "non math person"). Having comments like that thrown around in the aether makes it seem like technical subjects have "you either have it or you don't" characteristics, which I think most people on HN know is BS. I prefer to emphasize hard work over any kind…

I would say opportunity + curiosity + propensity is the formula and we know what curiosity and propensity are not chosen things. The other caveat is just anomalous ability and although rare we have strong evidence of these people existing. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't have the baggage that you speak but understandable. What you mean is applicable for the average folks, me included.

I get what you are trying say. It is just that most of society doesn't care if you are smart, creative or trying to do anything special when you are trying to get an education, apartment or anything else on your own terms. It is only once you succeed that people are quick to call you all those things before going back to enforcing the same rules you barely survived. It is sort of like an honorary degree.

Re: Jeri Ellsworth and the Robot Uprising of 2038

#44

Post by lifeisstillgood »

FYI: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeri_Ellsworth

There is a youtube talk linked in the articles references which is ... just watch it. I am always amazed by these stories - especially as I tried the opening a store in mid nineties flogging computers and internet cafes.

Re: Jeri Ellsworth and the Robot Uprising of 2038

#45

Post by TomMckenny »

chrissam wrote: post #42
tw1010 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that's just supposed to be a complement, but sometimes that kind of a comment contributes to people thinking there's such a thing as a "math person" (or a "non math person"). Having comments like that thrown around in the aether makes it seem like technical subjects have "you either have it or you don't" characteristics, which I think most people on HN know is BS. I prefer to emphasize hard work over any kind…

My experience is that "you either have it or you don't" is more accurate than not. > I'm pretty good at what I do, and when people tell me they're jealous of my talent, and kind of hint that it's innate, I get a bit insulted. I had to work a shitton to get where I am, and comments like that makes it sound like I had it easy. This is a common sentiment, but I don't find it convincing. The discussion here is about natu…

But for one guy, here is a completely unimpressive family[0]

But which studies show those 60%-80% numbers? A 20% spread is a lot but not surprising since the results change completely with the definition of intelligence which is easy to redefine since it is just a social construct.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_family

Re: Jeri Ellsworth and the Robot Uprising of 2038

#46

Post by platz »

std_throwawayay wrote: post #40
sitkack wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radiation hardness is different than sensitivity to EMP. It is the eddy currents from an EMPT that build up in and burn out small traces in micro electronics.

But magnetic cores are resistant to the M in EMP?

I'll offer a wild guess - perhaps they are only temporarily affected (i.e. mem-wiped) and function as normal after device reset, being made of iron, in contrast to semiconductor doping materials being hard-killed by the emp.

Re: Jeri Ellsworth and the Robot Uprising of 2038

#47

Post by sebringj »

hoaw wrote: post #43
sebringj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say opportunity + curiosity + propensity is the formula and we know what curiosity and propensity are not chosen things. The other caveat is just anomalous ability and although rare we have strong evidence of these people existing. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't have the baggage that you speak but understandable. What you mean is applicable for the average folks, me included.

I get what you are trying say. It is just that most of society doesn't care if you are smart, creative or trying to do anything special when you are trying to get an education, apartment or anything else on your own terms. It is only once you succeed that people are quick to call you all those things before going back to enforcing the same rules you barely survived. It is sort of like an honorary degree.

There is something to be said for that, 20/20 hindsight is easy to classify and mistakingly so bringing reasons for things unknown or impossible to know ahead of time is silly. I get that too.

Re: Jeri Ellsworth and the Robot Uprising of 2038

#48

Post by quickben »

tw1010 wrote: post #11
sebringj wrote: post #5

Crazy genius. This is an example of someone born to do something.

I know that's just supposed to be a complement, but sometimes that kind of a comment contributes to people thinking there's such a thing as a "math person" (or a "non math person"). Having comments like that thrown around in the aether makes it seem like technical subjects have "you either have it or you don't" characteristics, which I think most people on HN know is BS. I prefer to emphasize hard work over any kind…

As a most extreme counterargument I raise you the NBA players. They got it, we don't. No amount of training can make up for it if you don't have it.

Re: Jeri Ellsworth and the Robot Uprising of 2038

#49

Post by lsc »

chrissam wrote: post #42
tw1010 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that's just supposed to be a complement, but sometimes that kind of a comment contributes to people thinking there's such a thing as a "math person" (or a "non math person"). Having comments like that thrown around in the aether makes it seem like technical subjects have "you either have it or you don't" characteristics, which I think most people on HN know is BS. I prefer to emphasize hard work over any kind…

My experience is that "you either have it or you don't" is more accurate than not. > I'm pretty good at what I do, and when people tell me they're jealous of my talent, and kind of hint that it's innate, I get a bit insulted. I had to work a shitton to get where I am, and comments like that makes it sound like I had it easy. This is a common sentiment, but I don't find it convincing. The discussion here is about natu…

>My experience is that "you either have it or you don't" is more accurate than not.

Maybe that's correct, but is it more useful than the nurture view?

It's a debate; I mean, clearly, you don't want to spend a lot of time trying to get better at things you will never get better at, but sometimes it's not easy to tell you will be good at a thing until you spend a lot of time on prerequisites.

This is the argument that even if it's true that nature is more important than nurture, it is sometimes more useful to believe that nurture is more important, and that you can learn things.

I think there are a fair number of studies showing that people with a 'growth mindset' as they say, who believe it's about hard work and not just innate ability, tend to do better than people who believe it's fixed.[1]

I mean, in the usual case, of course, people who are smarter are more likely to think than anyone can learn things, 'cause their experience is that learning things is easier, and the way work and education is segmented, quite often people are put near others of their ability. but... I think a lot of these studies control for that.

[1]https://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/february7/dweck-020707.h...

Re: Jeri Ellsworth and the Robot Uprising of 2038

#50

Post by sebringj »

quickben wrote: post #48
tw1010 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that's just supposed to be a complement, but sometimes that kind of a comment contributes to people thinking there's such a thing as a "math person" (or a "non math person"). Having comments like that thrown around in the aether makes it seem like technical subjects have "you either have it or you don't" characteristics, which I think most people on HN know is BS. I prefer to emphasize hard work over any kind…

As a most extreme counterargument I raise you the NBA players. They got it, we don't. No amount of training can make up for it if you don't have it.

Yes this is a clear cut argument. The fact that the brain is hidden under the skull allows people to make statements that people's brains are all the same and its just effort after that. I think generally they are correct but there are outliers, most likely similar in proportion in terms of the traits that make NBA players in rarity in terms of intellectual gifts. I have met only 2 genius people in my life and the difference was so strikingly obvious that there was no doubt. One was a child prodigy in music and the other was a brilliant programmer that did string theory in high school. I also played basketball in my youth with a kid that made us all look like goofy idiots playing against him (but later drugs did him in) and swam with a swimmer that could lap everyone in the whole league but I do not know what came of him. It is a gift to see these people and undeniable when you experience this but for the vast majority of us, hard work and sheer will makes a huge difference in our own outcome.
Post reply on HN