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

171–180 of 202 posts

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#171

Post by bsenftner »

jancsika wrote: post #150
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…

Do you do the same with emotions? E.g., a) What is this emotion, b) no, that's the undue amount of stress from this particular encounter, c) larger, basic emotion that is the reason you're ruminating about a total stranger taking 20 seconds at the counter to decide on a coffee order after waiting 10 minutes in line... :)

No, I treat emotions as yet to be vocalized or identified observations. Emotions are like unsaid statements, hanging in a pregnant pause. If I find myself caught up in emotion, that is a likely scenario where bias can enter my self conversation, and being aware of the danger of self conversation bias, I turn my suspicious self against myself and re-center logically. Wash away that emotion with analysis and awareness.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#173

Post by mallowdram »

bonoboTP wrote: post #164
tolerance wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The input is arbitrary so claiming it can execute perpetually any of these is still trapped behind re arbitrary lens or threshold.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#174

Post by curmudgeon22 »

dpark wrote: post #170
mrandish wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ”.

Sometimes, whats meaningful to an individual becomes cloudy (maybe not everyone gets this, but some do). Or they feel like they are interpreting it wrong or something because it isn't mapping to the cultural expectations and what we "should" find meaningful.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#175

Post by whatevertrevor »

bsenftner wrote: post #171
jancsika wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you do the same with emotions? E.g., a) What is this emotion, b) no, that's the undue amount of stress from this particular encounter, c) larger, basic emotion that is the reason you're ruminating about a total stranger taking 20 seconds at the counter to decide on a coffee order after waiting 10 minutes in line... :)

No, I treat emotions as yet to be vocalized or identified observations. Emotions are like unsaid statements, hanging in a pregnant pause. If I find myself caught up in emotion, that is a likely scenario where bias can enter my self conversation, and being aware of the danger of self conversation bias, I turn my suspicious self against myself and re-center logically. Wash away that emotion with analysis and awareness.

I find trying to hide and wash away emotions tends to be a dangerous strategy long term. I get that sometimes emotions are unproductive for the task at hand, but the longer you keep washing them away with "logic", the stronger they keep returning at inopportune times. The long term strategy that works for me is to acknowledge them, actually listen to them, but also recognize I have the ability to act despite them. Easier said than done of course.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#176

Post by prezdizzle »

As Mr. Smith points out in the Matrix:

"There's no escaping reason, no denying purpose, for as we both know, without purpose we would not exist. It is purpose that created us, purpose that connects us, purpose that pulls us, that guides us, that drives us; it is purpose that defines, purpose that binds us."

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#177

Post by vishkk »

Whatever it was — a lie, the truth, or, most likely, their mix­ture — that caused me to make such a decision, I am im­mensely grateful to it for what appears to have been my first free act. It was an instinctive act, a walkout. Reason had very little to do with it. I know that, because I've been walk­ing out ever since, with increasing frequency. And not necessarily on account of boredom or of feeling a trap gaping; I've been walking out of perfect setups no less often than out of dreadful ones. However modest the place you happen to occupy, if it has the slightest mark of decency, you can be sure that someday somebody will walk in and claim it for himself or, what is worse, suggest that you share it. Then you either have to fight for that place or leave it. I happened to prefer the latter. Not at all because I couldn't fight, but rather out of sheer disgust with myself: managing to pick something that attracts others denotes a certain vulgarity in your choice. It doesn't matter at all that you came across the place first. It is even worse to get somewhere first, for those who follow will always have a stronger appetite than your partially satisfied one. - Joseph Brodsky

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#178

Post by stronglikedan »

RataNova wrote: post #165
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

As long as they're paying me enough to move fast toward their goalpost, I'm in (as long as it's ethical, of course). Otherwise, my own personal goalposts amount to hanging out with my dogs.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#179

Post by tolerance »

bartread wrote: post #168
tolerance wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Good point. I wish I would’ve added a condition to that statement. Dexterity varies. I don’t think that the profession as whole is doomed and I’m skeptical toward the expectation that other skilled/craft industries are as well.

I think that AI is going to be a boon for certain types of people, an impediment for some others and a source of indifference for some too. But I don’t necessarily expect the median to go quietly out the door. Unless they receive a universal, perpetual sort of “severance” with a progressive-sounding tint.

Post reply on HN