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

Our efforts, in part, define us

weakty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 202 posts

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#161

Post by RataNova »

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #107
bsenftner wrote: post #9

Maybe this is a neurodivergent thing, but I have, as long as I can remember, always had the following progression in my mind: "What are you doing? No, that's this situation's name, what is this really?" and I'd continue a few times seeking the "larger problem, the more basic problem being solved" that whatever I was doing "really is". That "basic problem" was "communicating" far more frequently than I expected, and t…

Culture has created this odd myth that if something is semantic it doesn't matter. That communication is just another soft skill. Humans make meaning, we are the only source of complex, long term, meaning generation we have ever observed. We emit meaning the way a star emits photons. Sure, a lot of natural processes would still exist if we weren't around. But in this universe, perhaps the only one that exists, we are…

I love the image of humans emitting meaning like stars emit photons. It's poetic, but also kind of literal.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#162

Post by cortesoft »

Insanity wrote: post #147

Unlike the author, I think that the value of writing code in my free time (or well, the joy more than the value) has diminished greatly. I took a lot of 'pride in the craft', and I used to really enjoy hacking away on new projects with languages that I normally wouldn't use in my day-to-day. But now whenever I start something I think of how much faster I could be if I just used an LLM. Which takes away some of the jo…

It's funny, because I feel like code AIs have given me a new enthusiasm for creating side projects. When I was young, I would spend so much time creating side projects and I loved it. Then, I got older, got married, had kids, got tired... I know longer have opportunities to lock myself away for 8 hours in a day to bang away on a fun project. Instead, I have small 30-60 minute windows scattered around, without the energy to bury myself in the fun problems. I don't think I am alone in taking at least 30-60 minutes to fully fill up my brain context for a problem in order to do real coding. Without longer chunks of time to be able to do that, I just stopped doing any sort of complex side project. I just don't have the time and mental energy for that in this stage of my life.

LLMs have completely changed that for me. I can actually start and do those side projects that have been kicking around in my head for years. I don't need 8 hours just to get to a starting point on a project; I can type up a spec off and on during my spare time, then sit down with an LLM and generate the framework of my project in minutes. I am no longer stymied by my short chunks of free time.

I feel like a whole world of creativity has opened up for me again.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#163

Post by RataNova »

w10-1 wrote: post #155

I think the concern is deep, deeper than mitigations like going up the abstraction chain from coding to design, or lessons learned from failure. It's very, very difficult to really realize that one's sacrifice was meaningless or mistaken. Effort - sacrifice - in particular is for the sake of something else; you burn your precious life/time for the sake of X, and then X doesn't work or turns out to be an illusion. You…

The Ta Hsueh line is such a powerful image, especially in contrast with today's digital haze. The call to "make it new" daily implies presence, intention, and responsibility

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#164

Post by bonoboTP »

tolerance wrote: post #76
mallowdram wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AI debacle is unusual as it's alive in disinformation at a scale that penetrates every status class. Of course AI is a failure of imagination. But so were symbols, which cannot reference, they can only represent, if at all. The real function of AI appears to be the transition away from symbols, metaphors, folk science cause and effect ideation. We're only barely sensing this, but if you listen to Gary Marcus, Ric…

Curious what your take on this piece might be. I recommend the last 1/3 of it if you’re pressed for time or wits. https://hedgehogreview.com/issues/lessons-of-babel/articles/...

I found it a bit pretentious and name-dropping more than having a cogent point. AI is not simply going to take jobs where you just have to blabber stochastically. It can execute commands, call tools, write code etc. I think the author got caught up too much in the fact that the "Word" in the Gospel of John seems to align with the fact that LLMs process words. But it's really not a very deep connection.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#165

Post by RataNova »

hermannj314 wrote: post #63

The people convincing you it is a virtue to move fast always happen to be selling a car. Be careful that you aren't optimizing your life in response to someone else's marketing campaign.

"Move fast" sounds noble until you realize you're just accelerating toward someone else's goalpost

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#166

Post by siavosh »

bsenftner wrote: post #9

Maybe this is a neurodivergent thing, but I have, as long as I can remember, always had the following progression in my mind: "What are you doing? No, that's this situation's name, what is this really?" and I'd continue a few times seeking the "larger problem, the more basic problem being solved" that whatever I was doing "really is". That "basic problem" was "communicating" far more frequently than I expected, and t…

I often find myself asking the same pair of questions "What are you doing? No, that's this situation's name, what is this really?", and it usually leads to "this is nonesense, it's paying civilizational debt based on a series of decisions that thousands of people made with no clue of where it would lead". Which then is usually followed with "what should you be doing?"...which depending on the day usually ends up being half-jokingly: "I should be living in a small community far from capitalistic excess."

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#167

Post by siavosh »

I think the sense of loss and fear is undeniable for most. None of it is unprecedented, although probably never has the potential for both been more extreme than with AI. The spiritual/psychological solution is always the same though, fully surrender to the loss and fear, then find a way to transcend it.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#168

Post by bartread »

tolerance wrote: post #36
bartread wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went through something like that transition the first time I moved into management. It took me by surprise how much I tied what I did to who I was, and how much it bothered me that I could no longer so easily articulate what I'd done during a day at work. It was no longer I made this, I made that, I added these features, I fixed those bugs. It was all relational. It was all meetings and conversations. It felt like…

These passages, right here: > But the critical change was that I now saw my value in enabling the success of others - our team, the teams that relied on our platform and products, our customers and clients - and so I loved my job (for the most part). > This doesn't directly relate to AI but does show that it's possible to go through a transition where you lose a big part - or all - of what you thought gave you value,…

> (as opposed to the step backwards that AI imposes)

I guess this is my only quibble: is it really a step backwards? I can get on board with the idea that maybe the jury is out, but the evidence I've seen and experienced is more that it's a force multiplier than anything else.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we're all fucked.

But for now at least I think reports of the death of software development as a profession are greatly exaggerated.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#169

Post by webnrrd2k »

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #153
Etheryte wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This type of thinking should've died with the contemporaries of Darwin who didn't believe in evolution. We live on a planet full of complex, intelligent life, we're far from the only ones giving things meaning. Animals have social structures and emotions that are as sophisticated as our own, it's only ego to think that we're unique in giving life meaning.

The statement was qualified, if you have objective evidence for species propagating long term complex meaning that we have observed as the written word or other externalized means please demonstrate. I do not understand why a person would say that demonstratably dolphins have done more meaning generation than people? The universe is full of possibilities, I'm trying to establish an empirical/observable floor not the…

For those who are interested in the above comments, I find that David Brin's Uplift series does a great job exploring these themes, for e.g., what can happen when dolphins or monkeys are given sentence and full use of advanced technology.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#170

Post by dpark »

mrandish wrote: post #154
tofuahdude wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really like the way you said we emit meaning. It is kind of funny, that we seek meaning and/or purpose in everything - our lives, our actions, our thoughts - but there is a nice change in perspective in considering it as something that we produce rather than find.

Yeah, a typical advice trope is "Find things with meaning and do those" which isn't very useful once you understand we create meaning internally. Meaning is an individualized perception not an extrinsic property. This gets tricky because our perceptions can be influenced by societal expectations of which things should be meaningful - as if it's an objective property. It's easy to think of activities to which many peo…

> Yeah, a typical advice trope is "Find things with meaning and do those" which isn't very useful once you understand we create meaning internally. Meaning is an individualized perception not an extrinsic property.

Why does intrinsic meaning make this advice not useful? I have always understood this sort of advice to mean “do things that are meaningful to you”.

Post reply on HN