151–160 of 166 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Rowers have a word for this frictionless state: swing... Recall the pure joy of riding on a backyard swing: an easy cycle of motion, the momentum coming from the swing itself. The swing carries us; we do not force it. We pump our legs to drive our arc higher, but gravity does most of the work. We are not so much swinging as being swung. The boat swings you. The shell wants to move fast: Speed sings in its lines and…
Aka “mechanical sympathy”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I don’t see the confusion. There are a lot of distinct issues with LLMs. In my initial message I made it clear I was talking about the economics issues. > your concern would be invalid if the AI companies overall make profit. If they don’t, then you would have been right on the point of being careful. No, that’s fallacious reasoning. If the AI vendors are currently profitable that doesn’t mean the concerns regard…
This thread is emblematic of the HN view of AI. It starts with some vague concerns - you specify that it is a purely economic concern and not subjective feeling. After being asked that if the economics work out would your concern be proved wrong, you then started mentioning things like anti-human and piling up a random list of other topics. Essentially you have made your concern utterly unfalsifiable - however the ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This thread is emblematic of the HN view of AI. It starts with some vague concerns - you specify that it is a purely economic concern and not subjective feeling. After being asked that if the economics work out would your concern be proved wrong, you then started mentioning things like anti-human and piling up a random list of other topics. Essentially you have made your concern utterly unfalsifiable - however the ma…
I won’t engage with you again on this website, you’re not engaging in good faith. Read the thread again, none of my responses are me trying to weasel out. I took your (fairly low quality) questions seriously, and answered them honestly. My _economics_ concerns are definitely falsifiable, but not with such simple assertions as „but what if they are profitable“. That’s would only address one of the multiple economics p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weird analogy. Nonsensical from both physical standpoint (the only energy input when swinging is the person on the swing "pumping their legs"), and practical one (you usually sit down with the swing already at an angle and then kick off, so a good 50% of the arc/momentum is there from the setup ).
You clearly didn't read this. It's about rowing. Not being on a playground.
You can fail a project not because you were technically wrong about anything, but because you burned your customer out by taking 6 months instead of 6 weeks to find a viable solution to their problem. Speed is a feature from the perspective of your customers. There is economic value associated with it. Consider your state of mind when you call the HVAC tech to fix your broken condensing on an August afternoon in Texa…
The piece is titled "Religion of Speed" -- in other words speed (or apparent speed) as the guiding principle over anything else.
It says nothing even remotely like "you should take 6 months to do something that can be accomplished in 6 weeks."
And this statement:
"There is definitely a point where you are going too fast, but the customer will almost certainly let you know when this happens. Let them decide for you how fast is too fast"
is baffling to me.
In my experience (40+ years in software development) I have never had a customer/client that would be in a position to have the proper situational awareness + technical depth to make this judgement call.
And even worse I would guess that if even this was not the case that 95% of the time they would not say you're going too fast, instead they would ask to go faster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember learning to race on the track. In the sharp turns, you feel like that's where you should try really hard to go fast. Because you're going so slow! But really, it makes more sense to slow down MORE, be smooth and controlled and get the turn right. And you'll get a better drive and be faster later. slow in, fast out. also, the math wins - going 1mph faster on the 1/4-mile straightaway works out better than g…
While I agree with the idea, the math is misleading. Going 1mph faster on the 100-foot turn may be faster overall than going 1mph faster on the 1/4-mile straightaway if the speed difference is large enough. Ex: - 1/4-mile at 100 mph takes 9s, at 101 mph, it will take 8.9s - 100 ft at 20 mph takes 3.8s, at 21 mph it will take 3.2s It means that overall, in this situation, it is better to go 1 mph more on the turn (8.9…
Getting pedantic about the simple math laid out in the metaphor seems like you have lost the plot.
From an engineering perspective slow is smooth is fast, but from a sales perspective slow is smooth is slow. If you quote superior quality with 6 months later delivery your competitor will get to sign a contract that could very well last 5-10 years and comes up just so rarely. Missing out on that contract doesn't always mean you get to focus on other projects, it could mean you have to fire whole teams of people that…
Sure, it seems true for a short period. But rushing something forward means you cut corners and that catches up with you over time. Anyone who has ever had a sales team asking for special features to be hacked into a product with little or no time for any proper architectural considerations or releasing before all the testing is complete in order to “get the big deal” has felt this. Yes, the other side may win a deal…
The trick is striking a balance. The article is arguing that there is little to no balance and that "apparent speed" trumps all other concerns.
Hence the use of the word "Religion" in the title.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree but I believe it is still well thought out and worth a read, which is rare.
I don't think posts should be flagged for being AI (they often contain interesting or important ideas as well), but I do think it should be pointed out.
Slop is slop -- if it is AI generated slop then fine, call it out.
If it is not slop what is the point of this compulsion? It derails a lot of threads when the content is actually good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I won’t engage with you again on this website, you’re not engaging in good faith. Read the thread again, none of my responses are me trying to weasel out. I took your (fairly low quality) questions seriously, and answered them honestly. My _economics_ concerns are definitely falsifiable, but not with such simple assertions as „but what if they are profitable“. That’s would only address one of the multiple economics p…
Yes exactly the layers of political and social concerns are all new and you added them up in the later part of the thread. You might realise, I hope, that these are all nebulous concerns. Basically left yourself unfalsifiable - a person could have made the same layered unfocused accusation on the internet in 1980s. Something something anti human, something societal and political. It’s a good tactic I tell ya.