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

The future of everything is lies, I guess: Where do we go from here?

aphyr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 830 posts

Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Where do we go from here?

#291

Post by recursive »

nradov wrote: post #265
recursive wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like a hard argument to make that bikes can suck more than cars because of parking . As a bicycle enthusiast, I can provide you with some better reasons. You'll get rained on. You'll get sweaty. The helmet will mess up your fancy hair. You can't go as fast. Parking is one of the biggest upsides of bikes IMO.

Parking is one of the biggest downsides of bikes IMO. Bikes are great, I ride mine whenever I can. But most places lack secure bike parking and the police don't take bike theft seriously. So sometimes I drive my car even to places where I could easily ride a bike just because I'm confident the car will still be there when I get out.

Yeah, that's a real problem. For practical urban riding, I use a beater fixie that I can replace for less than a car payment. I've had a few stolen, but that's across decades. This is probably highly dependent on your particular location. But I've also had cars broken in to.

Replacing the bike is actually a lot easier than getting the windows fixed IME.

Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Where do we go from here?

#292

Post by pesus »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #77
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's becoming so ubiquitous, I highly doubt it. At worst I think a manager would just see it as fluff, but not a negative.

I hope the hiring managers I would actually want to work for would see it as a red flag on resumes

At this point, I'd assume those hiring managers are also being forced to use AI in their jobs (or pretend, at least) and probably wouldn't read too much into it if it's not a substantial portion of their resume. I do feel the same way, though.

Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Where do we go from here?

#293

Post by chungusamongus »

throwanem wrote: post #133
chungusamongus wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nice for you but other people have kids to feed and don't particularly care about your little crusade, which will fail.

Go look in a mirror, not at me. That's where the argument is waiting that you're feeling urged toward.

What you just said was an elaborate tu quoque fallacy. You aren't comprehending my basic point, which is that individual ethical decisions are not going to make a difference when all of the broader incentives are causing people to act otherwise.

Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Where do we go from here?

#294

Post by underlipton »

nradov wrote: post #259
underlipton wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_Silicon_Valley_Ban... In which the FDIC took unprecedented action, drawing down the DIF to backstop depositors beyond the insured $250k and offering a credit facility to other banks, in order to prevent "contagion" - a panic, a bank run - which was presumed to be likely after the 3rd largest bank collapse in US history. A bank almost no one outside of California had heard of…

You really missed the point. SVB was undone by their own failure to manage interest rate risk, and then by the actions of corporate depositors. Retail banking customers had little to do with it. Corporations certainly aren't going to participate in some sort of pointless consumer protest.

It's a liquidity problem. Retail absolutely can drop any given bank into a liquidity crunch by pulling out too many funds, too quickly. It doesn't even need to put a given bank at risk of insolvency, if the situation is read as widespread and/or growing, because as the event expands, so does the likelihood that someone else is mismanaging their books. Someone who is hooked into another institution, and another, and another. Contagion.

Anyway, corporate depositors have a duty to safeguard their capital. That means that if a bank run is underway by retail depositors, they're in line too, willing participants or not. This is why, again, even discussion of bank runs is discouraged, and their likelihood and effectiveness downplayed. They're built on turning the imperative of self-interest, which the financial industry is built on, on its head.

Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Where do we go from here?

#295

Post by nradov »

the_af wrote: post #266
nradov wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That's not the rebuke you think it is. You made a claim (not original, I've read it before), someone expressed doubts about your claim (which if proven false, will have dire consequences) and you cannot wave it off with "there are no guarantees in life". Sorry, you made a claim, there's good reason to believe your claim may not pan out, and if it doesn't the consequences are dire.

I don't think it's a rebuke. I'm just explaining the reality of the situation.

Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Where do we go from here?

#296

Post by nradov »

underlipton wrote: post #294
nradov wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really missed the point. SVB was undone by their own failure to manage interest rate risk, and then by the actions of corporate depositors. Retail banking customers had little to do with it. Corporations certainly aren't going to participate in some sort of pointless consumer protest.

It's a liquidity problem. Retail absolutely can drop any given bank into a liquidity crunch by pulling out too many funds, too quickly. It doesn't even need to put a given bank at risk of insolvency, if the situation is read as widespread and/or growing, because as the event expands, so does the likelihood that someone else is mismanaging their books. Someone who is hooked into another institution, and another, and a…

Nope, you're still missing the point. SVB had a solvency problem, not just a liquidity problem. And some silly consumer protest withdrawals will never be able to cause a liquidity problem for any bank that matters.

Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Where do we go from here?

#297

Post by californical »

nradov wrote: post #272
tim333 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article skips the potential upsides of an AI future - like curing diseases, abundance, merge type immortality. I'm keen myself with nothing to do with the goals of the 0.001% really. I think the future generations will like the above and look back on now like we look back at medieval dentistary.

I have nothing against AI as a technology but the notion of it "curing diseases" is so silly. The limiting factors are largely in fundamental biology research and then human clinical trials. There is no plausible way that LLMs will make those activities 10× faster or cheaper. Hard work still has to be done in the messy real world outside of computers.

But what if we could predict which treatments would be most successful with ~70% accuracy? It would potentially speed up the feedback loops right?

There may also be downsides, like skipping testing things that would enhance our fundamental understanding of something because the AI was wrong. But that’s already a problem , and having a better gauge in the early stages could be really helpful

Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Where do we go from here?

#298

Post by dpark »

nehal3m wrote: post #285
dpark wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> industrial scale transport and personal transport share a rolling platform with an engine, but they're different platforms with different requirements, different economics and different lifecycles. What does this mean? This feels a bit like a distinction without a difference, as the infrastructure built is shared by both. > although school children here will happily pedal 10km to school and back on the daily How fl…

>What does this mean? This feels a bit like a distinction without a difference, as the infrastructure built is shared by both. I guess I wasn't clear in implying my doubts as to whether that's a hard requirement. Trucks are much larger and heavier which takes its toll on the road surface itself. They don't need access to suburban environments. Even in the inner city here trucks are banned outside of loading and unloa…

> They don't need access to suburban environments.

How are suburban environments stocked then? Surely village grocery stores are not stocked with milk one bike load at a time.

> Even in the inner city here trucks are banned outside of loading and unloading hours to foster a walk-able environment.

Sure. But they use the same infrastructure. The fact that the vehicles are built for different purposes and may have different regulations doesn’t mean the cost of infrastructure isn’t shared. Pervasiveness of roads makes it easy for cars, trucks, ambulances, buses, and even bikes to get around more easily.

Just like the pervasiveness of the Internet make it easy to scroll TikTok, purchase goods from Amazon, and read books through Project Gutenberg, even though those are very different use cases.

Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Where do we go from here?

#299

Post by geremiiah »

archagon wrote: post #288
geremiiah wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This tech is 100% aligned with the goals of the 0.001% that own and control it If AI is smart enough to replace the 99.999% it's also smart enough to replace the 0.001%.

The 0.001% has a controlling stake in AI, so they're in the clear. The 99.999% needs to assert their controlling stake in the technology. I don't know what this looks like. Maybe ubiquitous unionizing, coupled with a fully public and openly-trained LLM.

The monkeys claimed ownership of the world's resources according to monkey law. I guess we are now subservient to the monkeys.

Re: The future of everything is lies, I guess: Where do we go from here?

#300

Post by geremiiah »

layer8 wrote: post #99
geremiiah wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This tech is 100% aligned with the goals of the 0.001% that own and control it If AI is smart enough to replace the 99.999% it's also smart enough to replace the 0.001%.

That fact doesn’t prevent the 0.001% from continuing to control it.

Point is, if an AGI becomes powerful and capable enough of replacing 99.999% of humanity, the likes of Sam Altman and Elon Musk won't be able to control it.
Post reply on HN