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

Careless People

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 575 posts

Re: Careless People

#181

Post by Gravityloss »

eru wrote: post #142
Jevon23 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order to get into Zuckerberg’s position in the first place, you need to have a highly competitive personality type. And competitive people want to win at EVERYTHING, all the time. It’s a constant compulsion. Even if they might intellectually understand the distinction between “just a game” and “actual serious time”, they don’t “feel” that distinction in their bones. They have no off switch.

> In order to get into Zuckerberg’s position in the first place, you need to have a highly competitive personality type. And competitive people want to win at EVERYTHING, all the time. Many competitive people want to win, but they want to win the real game, not a rigged version.

In my personal experience the will to win and the willingness to cheat in general correlates.

Re: Careless People

#182

Post by kashunstva »

hermitcrab wrote: post #134

>Zuck learns Mandarin. He studies Xi's book, conspicuously displays a copy of it on his desk. Eventually, he manages to sit next to Xi at a dinner where he begs Xi to name his next child. Xi turns him down. I do wonder what the point of amassing all that money and power is, if it means you end up grovelling to a despot like Xi (or a would-be despot like Trump).

Just riding that hedonic treadmill, probably. Once you have bought all the properties you want, airplanes, helicopters and yachts, I imagine your hedonic set-point adjusts to that level and you begin to cast about for what's missing. (What's missing of course, is what all these people can't seem to find, which is an unwavering set of human-centred values.)

Re: Careless People

#183

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

daxfohl wrote: post #148
eru wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In order to get into Zuckerberg’s position in the first place, you need to have a highly competitive personality type. And competitive people want to win at EVERYTHING, all the time. Many competitive people want to win, but they want to win the real game, not a rigged version.

"If you're not cheating, you're not trying."

To be fair, some games effectively to force you to move outside normal set of rules eventually ( ie. Monopoly, when bank money supply dries out ).

Re: Careless People

#184

Post by omegaworks »

drdrek wrote: post #83

This is exactly the type of people the cultural purge in big tech came to flush out. Trying to change a multi billion dollar company from the inside is delusional, self serving, narcissistic and ineffective. Who the hell do you think you are in the great machine of 100,000+ employees companies, of billions invested in them. The change is going to be political, regulatory. These companies always can't change until reg…

I don't think this is about convincing anyone that she's a good person. She's forthright about her instincts and values and the institutions she worked at that fostered her understanding of the world.

She documents in detail critical moments where Facebook executives made decisions that exemplified their incompetence and damaged their potential impact.

That the "cultural purge" in big tech is flushing out people with these instincts is precisely why the industry is flailing and groveling at the feet of power, for they have no internal compass save for growth for growth's sake.

Everyone can see that now laid bare on these pages, and these companies that rely on their user's willingness to exchange details about their personal lives for cheap dopamine hits may find that generosity well run dry.

Re: Careless People

#185

Post by yapyap »

It’s jarring when people refer to having read something and then it turns out they listened to the audiobook.

This is not a jab on this specific blogger but a general thing.

There should be a term for listening to an audiobook that’s not reading but does refer to a book on audio level, or just say you listened to the book.

Re: Careless People

#186

Post by DreaminDani »

yapyap wrote: post #185

It’s jarring when people refer to having read something and then it turns out they listened to the audiobook. This is not a jab on this specific blogger but a general thing. There should be a term for listening to an audiobook that’s not reading but does refer to a book on audio level, or just say you listened to the book.

Reading an audiobook is reading. As a partially blind person, it is the only way I can read comfortably. I'm not sure how a different word would help. If one was reviewing the audiobook, specifically, they might call it out in order to comment on the narration quality, etc. But if you listened to the book, you've read it.

Re: Careless People

#187

Post by pabs3 »

diggan wrote: post #37
grunder_advice wrote: post #8

Whenever these kind of articles pop up, I always think how sad it is that PyTorch, Llama and many widely used opens source projects are tied to Meta.

Lets say Meta goes under tomorrow (won't happen, but bear with me) and stops making new Llama releases. Would the community be able to take over the project and train new models, assuming they have access to the same hardware? Obviously, the community doesn't have access to similar hardware, but even if it did, would the community be able to continue releasing Llama models? And if the answer to that is no, why is tha…

Its unlikely all the training data for Llama is publicly available, let alone under an open source license. If Llama actually had an open source license (IIRC it doesn't), that would still make it a Toxic Candy model under the Debian Deep Learning Team's Machine Learning policy. That means no-one could replicate it exactly, even if they had the boatloads of cash it would take to buy enough hardware and electricity to do the training. Eventually the community could maybe find or create enough data, but that would be a new different model.

https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy

Re: Careless People

#188

Post by hackeman300 »

kibwen wrote: post #154
eru wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In order to get into Zuckerberg’s position in the first place, you need to have a highly competitive personality type. And competitive people want to win at EVERYTHING, all the time. Many competitive people want to win, but they want to win the real game, not a rigged version.

> Many competitive people want to win, but they want to win the real game, not a rigged version. There are far, far fewer of these people than you think. Lance Armstrong was the best, and he cheated to win anyway. Barry Bonds was the best, and he cheated to win anyway. Tom Brady was the best, and he cheated to win anyway.

The thing Tom Brady is accused of (deflating footballs) is scientifically proven to be a result of the ideal gas law. The NFL admitted they had no idea that was a thing when they levied the accusations at him.

Even if you believe the NFL and it was "more probable than not" that he was "generally aware" of a scheme to deflate the balls, let's not pretend that accusation is even in the same universe as what Bonds and Armstrong did

Re: Careless People

#189

Post by pabs3 »

diggan wrote: post #176
ImprobableTruth wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the fact that all (good) LLM datasets are full with licensed/pirated material means we'll never really see a decent open source model under the strict definition. Open weight + open source code is really the best we're going to get, so I'm fine with it coopting the term open source even if it doesn't fully apply.

> we'll never really see a decent open source model under the strict definition But there are already a bunch of models like that, were everything (architecture, training data, training scripts, etc) is open, public and transparent. Since you weren't aware those existed since before, but you now know that, are you willing to change your perspective on it? > so I'm fine with it coopting the term open source even if it…

Not all of the community is OK with this, lots of folks are strongly against OSI's bullshit OSAID for example. Really it should have been more like the Debian Deep Learning Team's Machine Learning Policy, just like last time when the OSI used the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) to create the Open Source Definition (OSD).

https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy

Re: Careless People

#190

Post by sokoloff »

lordnacho wrote: post #96
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #9

> There's Zuck, whose underlings let him win at board-games like Settlers of Catan because he's a manbaby who can't lose (and who accuses Wynn-Williams of cheating when she fails to throw a game of Ticket to Ride while they're flying in his private jet). Why does this seem to be a recurring pattern among the modern ultrawealthy? Does anyone who fails to bend over backwards for them just end up getting exiled? Have th…

You've won the lottery, but you don't want to acknowledge that you won the lottery. You want to feel they you deserve your position through hard work and talent. You're living in a society where people are credulous, to some degree they believe that hard work and talent are related to success. So what will happen? Everyone you hire ends up patting you on the back, telling you what a great guy you are.

> to some degree they believe that hard work and talent are related to success

Does anyone actually believe that hard work and talent are either zero or negatively correlated to success? I don't think the correlation is 1.0, but I firmly believe that it's positive for both.

Post reply on HN