Seems like a thinly-veiled recruiting ad...
Where is the veil...?
I was being polite... :-D
Can you reverse engineer our neural network?
171–180 of 216 posts
Re: Can you reverse engineer our neural network?
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
All I think when I see this is "this intelligence wasted on finance and ads." Can you imagine human potential if it was somehow applied to crop harvesting efficiency, new medicines, etc? Not everything has to be perfectly efficient but it just saddens me to see all these great minds doing what, adversarially harvesting margin from the works of others?
You are underestimating the importance of efficient allocation of capital and and attention. What use is discovering a way to improve harvesting efficiency if there is no money to develop it into a product or inform customers of its existence. It might as well not exist without there being a way to finance, make people aware of it, and reward the creator.
The problem with this line is that there is social value to things aside from their standalone ability to generate revenue. Essentially every publicly funded thing derives from this philosophy. In fact the social utility of a thing and its profitability probably aren’t that tightly coupled.
If you buy that (not everyone does) then it follows that an industry can be compensating beyond its social value.
That is, the value of providing market liquidity is not zero. The value of figuring out the optimal next video on YouTube is not zero. But in my opinion there is also social value in making sure poor kids can read.
Re: Can you reverse engineer our neural network?
#173[stub for offtopicness]
All I think when I see this is "this intelligence wasted on finance and ads." Can you imagine human potential if it was somehow applied to crop harvesting efficiency, new medicines, etc? Not everything has to be perfectly efficient but it just saddens me to see all these great minds doing what, adversarially harvesting margin from the works of others?
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No doubt many of us agree with you, but this is not the kind of comment that should be stuck at the top of a thread, choking out more specific and interesting conversation.
Generic-indignant comments always get heavily upvoted, which is a failure mode of the upvoting system (and perhaps the human brain, who knows).
Re: Can you reverse engineer our neural network?
#174[stub for offtopicness]
[flagged]
"Don't be snarky."
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
"Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."
Re: Can you reverse engineer our neural network?
#175[stub for offtopicness]
Re: Can you reverse engineer our neural network?
#176Re: Can you reverse engineer our neural network?
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
We let the market dictate how society's resources are allocated. And we see, as a result, how the market is actually not at all interested in the satisfaction and well-being of the people in society.
"The market" here is just a convenient substitute for "people weighted by the disposable income", which today roughly approximates to "rich people".
Businesses and governments spend money as well.
For example, the US government is pretty interested in having really good weapons. So the market responds by developing weapons for the government.
Re: Can you reverse engineer our neural network?
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't really sure how to respond, it seemed obvious to me, so I put your question with the two comments into Claude. I genuinely think it gave a great response. I encourage you (or anybody) to try yourself next time, but here it is: The second person was essentially unpacking the phrase "the market" to reveal who it actually represents. Here are the top 3 interpretations of their point: 1. The market isn't a neutr…
Yes, it was clear that you wanted to refocus this as a moral problem of people. But that's irrelevant. The point of the guy above is that there is a system (the market) that creates certain incentives, and as a result, we have what we have. That's why I ask: what's your point? We still have all these problems.
So are you asking how to change it? I think that's pretty obvious once people understand it's a collective social choice - organize to change it. The point is "the market" is not some mysterious unreachable force.
For example, this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47181837 is wrong; even if you had large amount of people acting like that person does, you would still likely have a system that doesn't work in the interest of society.
Re: Can you reverse engineer our neural network?
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Next time someone says “what a waste of a brain”, respond with “how much money are you willing to contribute monthly to distribute to “top talent” so that they can “work on more important things”? Answer seems to be "approximately zero". One of those people has already suggested in another comment thread that the way to incentivize brilliant minds to work on “greater good” projects is to... raise their taxes so the…
Yikes, lol wtf :headdead:
Re: Can you reverse engineer our neural network?
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
All I think when I see this is "this intelligence wasted on finance and ads." Can you imagine human potential if it was somehow applied to crop harvesting efficiency, new medicines, etc? Not everything has to be perfectly efficient but it just saddens me to see all these great minds doing what, adversarially harvesting margin from the works of others?
The smartest people are going from Harvard et.al. into finance, adtech, investment banking, wallstreet. What they could achieve in spending their attention on real problem would be massive.
I'm not convinced those are the "smartest people" as much as the people with the correct ambitions and connections in the current system.
IMO, the "smartest people" are really fucking bored and doing nothing meaningful right now. You really think "the smartest" people are people who find working on Google's ad machine enjoyable? That they are programmers or traders?
Since when has "smartest" meant seeking the highest wage? Einstein didn't look for the highest paying job he could get, he took a do-nothing job and worked on what he cared about instead.
Fermi too took jobs that allowed him to pursue his passion, rather than accumulate wealth.
Newton blew a shitload of money on a pump and dump scam and spent all his time on proto-chemistry and calculus.
Bell basically ignored his company after patenting the telephone, giving almost all of his shares of the company to his new wife, who in turn entrusted them to her father, the guy who helped Bell make the company and who was defacto in control of the company. Bell spent a good amount of time studying the new field of Heredity.
The brilliant people involved in the invention of computing as a field during WW2 were doing it because it fascinated them. The military would have been happier with simpler computing machines. Von Neumann distributed a document describing EDVAC that helped nullify patent claims of the inventors.
The internet itself runs nearly entirely on free software and volunteer work!
It's insane that people are so utterly propagandized in the US "Hyper capitalism is best" mindset that even those who think the system doesn't work still implicitly believe that the system works to put the smartest people in the top earning jobs! Why do you believe smart people are primarily motivated by money?
Maybe, just maybe, smart people don't actually align their preferences to a market system at all! Maybe their priorities aren't actually money, or fame, or power.