Live data from Hacker News

Rich Hickey: Thanks AI

gist.github.com

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: Rich Hickey: Thanks AI

#71
I'm concerned about how things are progressing but unsure of the effectiveness of our advocacy.

---

Dear Automobile Purveyors,

How shall I thank thee, let me count the ways:

Should I thank you for plundering the accumulated knowledge of centuries of horsemanship and then claiming your contraptions represent "progress"?

For destroying the apprenticeship system?

For fouling the air and poisoning our streets with noxious fumes?

For wasting vast quantities of a blacksmith's time attempting to coax some useful understanding from your mechanically-inclined customers, time which could instead be spent training young farriers who, being possessed of actual craft, could learn proper technique and maintain what they shoe?

For eliminating stable hand positions, and thus the path to becoming a skilled horseman, ensuring future generations who cannot so much as bridle a mare? For giving me a sputtering machine to contend with when a gentleman needs transport instead of an actual horse who understands voice commands, responds faster, and has a chance of genuine loyalty?

For replacing the pleasant clip-clop of hooves with infernal mechanical racket? For providing the means to fill our roads with smoke-belching contraptions, making passage by honest horse nearly impossible?

For enticing businessmen with the promise to save some fraction on stable costs, not actually arrive any faster once you account for breakdowns, cutting off their future supply of trained coachmen while only experiencing a modest to severe reduction in reliability, dignity, and passenger comfort (tradeoffs they are apparently eager to make)?

For replacing the noble whinny with the honking of mechanical geese? For adding a "motor" to every blessed thing, most such additions requiring expensive petroleum and specialized repair?

For running the grandest and most damaging confidence scheme of this century? I think not.

This letter was a reminder that the motorcar is sure to flood the remainder of our thoroughfares with noise and danger, swamping our peaceful lanes, and making every journey suspect, forever.

When did we stop considering things failures that create more problems than they solve?

Respectfully disgusted,

A Farrier of Thirty Years

---

Dear Purveyors of the Printing Press,

How shall I thank thee, let me count the ways:

Should I thank you for plundering the entire corpus of sacred and classical texts and then asserting the right to reproduce them without permission from those who painstakingly created and preserved them?

For destroying the monastery education system?

For felling entire forests and fouling rivers with your ink and paper mills?

For wasting vast quantities of a scholar's time attempting to correct the errors your hasty mechanical process introduces, time which could instead be spent training novice scribes who, being actually literate, could learn proper letterforms and understand what they copy?

For eliminating scriptoria positions, and thus the path to becoming a master illuminator, ensuring future generations who cannot so much as hold a quill properly?

For giving me a cold, identical page when a reader deserves a manuscript crafted by human hands that reflect devotion, beauty, and the chance of divine inspiration?

For replacing the contemplative silence of the scriptorium with the clanking of mechanical presses?

For providing the means to flood Christendom with pamphlets and broadsheets, making works of genuine scholarship nearly impossible to distinguish from common rubbish?

For enticing bishops with the promise to save some fraction on copying costs, not actually produce holier works, cutting off their future supply of trained monks while only experiencing a modest to severe reduction in accuracy, artistry, and spiritual merit (tradeoffs they are apparently eager to make)?

For replacing the living hand of the scribe with the stamping of metal letters?

For adding "printed" versions to every blessed text, most such editions lacking proper marginalia, illumination, or prayerful intention?

For running the grandest and most damaging deception of this century?

I think not.

This letter was a reminder that the printing press is sure to flood the remainder of human discourse with heresy and error, swamping the faithful, and making every text of uncertain provenance, forever.

When did we stop considering things failures that create more problems than they solve?

In devoted opposition,

Brother Aldric, Copyist of the Scriptorium

Re: Rich Hickey: Thanks AI

#73
It probably started before, but the covid era really feels like it was a turning point after which everyone I see, including, it seems, Rich Hickey, is drowning in news headlines and social media takes.

Are things as bad as they seem? Or are we just talking about everything to death, making everything feel so immediate. Hard to say.

Every time I read any kind of history book about any era, I'm always struck at how absolutely horrible any particular detail was.

Nearly every facet of life always has the qualities it has today. Things are changing, old systems are giving way to new systems, people are being displaced, politicians acting corrupt, etc.

I can't help but feel like AI is just another thing we're using as an excuse to feel despair, almost like we're forgetting how to feel anything else.

Re: Rich Hickey: Thanks AI

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generative AI is used to defraud people, to propagandize them, to steal their intellectual property and livelihoods, to systematically deny their health insurance claims, to dangerously misinform them (e.g. illegitimate legal advice or hallucinated mushroom identification ebooks), to drive people to mental health breakdowns via "ai psychosis" and much more. The harm is real and material, and right now is causing unem…

Internet is used to defraud people, to propagandize them, to steal their intellectual property and livelihoods, to systematically deny their health insurance claims, to dangerously misinform them (e.g. illegitimate legal advice or hallucinated mushroom identification ebooks), to drive people to mental health breakdowns via "internet psychosis" and much more. The harm is real and material, and right now is causing une…

I was too young, too naive, and/or too ignorant to know the Internet would do those things. I would argue a majority of us were.

AI is _very_ clearly going to lead to a lot of negative outcomes, and I am no longer too young, naive, and ignorant about it.

"X thing was bad and has remained unsolved. Exponentially making X worse is therefore okay, as long as it helps me open 20 PRs per day."

Re: Rich Hickey: Thanks AI

#75
If anyone else is as puzzled as me I think i've cracked it: rich hickey and rob pike are language owners. That's a real specific job, and it's one that requires unbridled arrogance. Pretty sure that's what we're seeing here. Why else does their anger seem so poorly thought out.. so surprised? So it's one of those tragic flaw things. So let me piss them off by saying: thanks! thanks but your immense focus has forced you to ignore until now this huge thing bearing down on us.. but we who use your stuff and respect your work would benefit more if you happened to find time for a more thoughtful take on this massive thing happening right in our backyard, now that you've deigned to notice it at all. What would be cool would be if you were like "yes this is all terribly powerful I will apply my massive intellect towards helping it not cause our extinction, sorry about yelling at clouds, that was distracting"

Re: Rich Hickey: Thanks AI

#76
What I don't get about these is why people are responding to them. I get a few spams per week that get throu filters and I don't make a big deal of them, I just delete them.

Of course AI will be used for spam, so what. Delete and move on.

Re: Rich Hickey: Thanks AI

#78
I don't get posts like this, I guess I'm wondering:

A. Do people simply want "better" LLMs and AI? To some extent that's a fantasy, the bad comes with the good. To other extents it may be possible to improve things, but it still won't eliminate all the "bad".

B. So then why not embrace the bad with the good, as it's a package deal? (And with saying this, I'll be honest, I don't even think we've seen a fraction of the bad that AI has yet to create...)

C. Assuming the bad is mandatory in coming with the good, have you considered a principled stance against technology in general, less visibly like "primitivists" or more visibly like the Amish? If you want AI, you also must accept "AI slop" of some kind as a package deal. Some people have decided they do not want the "AI slop" and hence also do not want the AI that comes with it. The development of many pre-AI technologies have created problems that have made people oppose technological development in general because of this unwanted "package deal".

To be for being a computer programmer and developing complicated computer systems but against the "AI slop" that programming processes would have inevitably have produced, seems a bit contradictory. Some environmental activists have long been against pre-AI computer systems for being unsustainably destructive to the environment.

I guess I'm just wondering if this conversation intends to be "anti-tech" (against AI) in general, or for "tech reforms" (improving AI), or what the real message or takeaway is from conversations like these.

Re: Rich Hickey: Thanks AI

#80
post #77

Love his reply, to go along Rob Pike's. What are these companies thinking of with this junk?!?

Ads + BS generators = more BS ads

Maybe people eventually will become fed up with this nonsense and meet some friends over tea instead.

Post reply on HN