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

We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

zettelkasten.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 188 posts

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#131

Post by skybrian »

skydhash wrote: post #121
skybrian wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This all assumes you have experts that you can talk to. But they might be difficult to find or expensive to hire. You wouldn't want to waste your lawyer's time on trivia.

That is why experts often publish books and articles, which is then corrected by other experts (or random people if it’s a typo). I’ve read a lot of books and I haven’t met any of their authors. But I’ve still learned stuff.

Yep. At that point you're doing research, and become familiar enough with the literature to know what's right is work.

Much like with Wikipedia, using AI to start on this journey (rather than blindly using quick answers) makes a lot of sense.

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#132

Post by 8note »

mallowdram wrote: post #125
nathan_compton wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The brain is lossless." Nothing is lossless.

Fourier transforms are lossless. If it entered the oscillations of senses, it's still there in your brain. You may never need it, but every action is detailed by difference.

fourier transforms are lossless, but what impleemntation are you refering to that losslessly implements a fourier transform?

to my knowledge practical fourier transforms set a number of sine waves they will calculate for, and a window of time to look at. these limitations result in loss.

but, just taking the brain, at some point the person will die and decompose. how are you gonna get the oscillations back out of the rotted flesh? there has to be some form of loss to the brain

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#133

Post by mallowdram »

8note wrote: post #132
mallowdram wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fourier transforms are lossless. If it entered the oscillations of senses, it's still there in your brain. You may never need it, but every action is detailed by difference.

fourier transforms are lossless, but what impleemntation are you refering to that losslessly implements a fourier transform? to my knowledge practical fourier transforms set a number of sine waves they will calculate for, and a window of time to look at. these limitations result in loss. but, just taking the brain, at some point the person will die and decompose. how are you gonna get the oscillations back out of the…

We only need brains when we're alive, so extracting the points isn't required.

In terms of brains, the math is used to model the irreducible occurrences in brains - that everything is still in there. So the math only gives us a window into the complexity. Brains don't compute or calculate necessarily. As an analog, or analoga of differences, it never has to exclude, or experience loss.

For the details: Rhythms of the Brain or Unlocking the Brain both volumes.

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#135

Post by fluoridation »

klodolph wrote: post #56
trjordan wrote: post #50

I was talking with somebody about their migration recently [0], and we got to speculating about AI and how it might have helped. There were basically 2 paths: - Use the AI and ask for answers. It'll generate something! It'll also be pleasant, because it'll replace the thinking you were planning on doing. - Use the AI to automate away the dumb stuff, like writing a bespoke test suite or new infra to run those tests. I…

I’ve tried the second path at work and it’s grueling. “Almost certainly succeed” requires that you mostly plan out the implementation for it, and then monitor the LLM to ensure that it doesn’t get off track and do something awful. It’s hard to get much other work done in the meantime. I feel like I’m unlocking, like, 10% or 20% productivity gains. Maybe.

Agreed. Either that, or the task has really, really broad success parameters.

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#136

Post by jama211 »

danenania wrote: post #71
trjordan wrote: post #50

I was talking with somebody about their migration recently [0], and we got to speculating about AI and how it might have helped. There were basically 2 paths: - Use the AI and ask for answers. It'll generate something! It'll also be pleasant, because it'll replace the thinking you were planning on doing. - Use the AI to automate away the dumb stuff, like writing a bespoke test suite or new infra to run those tests. I…

I'd actually say that you end up needing to think more in the first example. Because as soon as you realize that the output doesn't do exactly what you need, or has a bug, or needs to be extended (and has gotten beyond the complexity that AI can successfully update), you now need to read and deeply understand a bunch of code that you didn't write before you can move forward. I think it can actually be fine to do this…

Depends how complex the task is. Sometimes I’m handed tasks so simple but tedious that AI has meant I can breeze through these instead of burning myself out on them. Sure, it doesn’t speed things up much in terms of time, but I’m way less burnt out at the end because it’s doing all the fiddly stuff that would tire me out. I suspect the tasks I get aren’t that typical though.

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#137

Post by bluefirebrand »

klodolph wrote: post #56
trjordan wrote: post #50

I was talking with somebody about their migration recently [0], and we got to speculating about AI and how it might have helped. There were basically 2 paths: - Use the AI and ask for answers. It'll generate something! It'll also be pleasant, because it'll replace the thinking you were planning on doing. - Use the AI to automate away the dumb stuff, like writing a bespoke test suite or new infra to run those tests. I…

I’ve tried the second path at work and it’s grueling. “Almost certainly succeed” requires that you mostly plan out the implementation for it, and then monitor the LLM to ensure that it doesn’t get off track and do something awful. It’s hard to get much other work done in the meantime. I feel like I’m unlocking, like, 10% or 20% productivity gains. Maybe.

10-20% productivity gains at the expense of making it grueling sounds like a recipe for burnout

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#138

Post by kelvinjps10 »

wduquette wrote: post #98
rafaquintanilha wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It is requisite that a man should arrange the things he wishes to remember in a certain order, so that from one he may come to another: for order is a kind of chain for memory" – Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae. Not ironically I found the passage in my Zettelkasten.

I arrange my code to follow a certain order, so that I can get my head back into a given module quickly. I don't remember everything ; there's too much over the weeks, months, and years. But I can remember enough to find what I need to know if I structure it properly. Not unlike, you know, a Zettlekasten.

Isn't a Zettlekasten, structured so you can easily go back to a note easily?

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#139

Post by Gormo »

AndyNemmity wrote: post #92

Before the internet we asked people around us in our sphere. If we wanted to know the answer to a question, we asked, they made up an answer, and we believed it and moved on. Then the internet came, and we asked the internet. The internet wasn't correct, but it was a far higher % correct than asking a random person who was near you. Now AI comes. It isn't correct, but it's far higher % correct than asking a random pe…

How is an LLM making stochastic inferences based on aggregations of random blog pages more likely to be correct than looking things up on decidedly non-random blog pages written by people with relevant domain knowledge?

Re: We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds

#140

Post by bccdee »

steezeburger wrote: post #103
bccdee wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're just saying that. There's no evidence that using phones makes teenagers stupid.

There is no evidence that using phones makes teenagers stupid? I see several studies. I feel like you're the one just saying things.

Which studies? Could you attach them?
Post reply on HN