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

Being too ambitious is a clever form of self-sabotage

maalvika.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 221 posts

Re: Being too ambitious is a clever form of self-sabotage

#191

Post by prairieroadent »

whilenot-dev wrote: post #186
czhu12 wrote: post #171

I think this is why it helps a lot to build something you actually use. Because then, the barometer for what is good becomes a lot more defined: "Did I solve the problem I had", and then slowly build up from there. Instead of trying to imagine a thing that someone else might or might not need. I've been slowly chipping away at a heroku alternative called Canine [1] for the better part of a year now on the side, and f…

> "Did I solve the problem I had" I really think that's the wrong question, but I don't know how to formulate it any better... it should be somewhere between playful curiosity ("how did it advance me a step in my own interests?"), pragmatic foresight ("how did it open up new possibilities?"), and bland reflection ("why was it the necessary thing to do at that moment?"). > "can i fix this thing that annoys me right no…

my intuition on all this, and what both you seem to be getting at is that is wildly difficult to understand the problems of others at least to the degree that you understand your own problems, which even then understanding one's own problems is hard... which leads to the perspective of focusing on what they understand (their own problems), and then as a side-effect of addressing their own problem helping others by documenting their problem and attempted solutions... documenting and broadcasting adds a little bit of overhead but it seems like an environmentally-friendly approach to participating in society in a healthy way

Re: Being too ambitious is a clever form of self-sabotage

#192

Post by dgfitz »

satyrun wrote: post #146
BoxFour wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m very torn at the moment if he was an incredible coach or just rode the wave or Brady talent. Honestly, it’s hard to imagine they’d have been anywhere near that successful if the answer wasn't just "both." You see plenty of examples of great coaches stuck with lousy rosters (Parcells with the Cowboys), and also great players on poorly run teams (Patricia-era Lions). Usually when a team only has one or the other,…

Exactly. It is such a stupid debate when Belichick coached and molded Brady into what he became. Everyone has always said Belichick is basically an encyclopedia of football knowledge.

That’s my whole point. Brady went on to win a ring in Tampa. Bill did… what?

I don’t give belicheck the credit for teaching Brady, you can’t teach that. It’s not stupid at all if you’re a fan of the sport.

Re: Being too ambitious is a clever form of self-sabotage

#193

Post by Herring »

anontrot wrote: post #184
czhu12 wrote: post #171

I think this is why it helps a lot to build something you actually use. Because then, the barometer for what is good becomes a lot more defined: "Did I solve the problem I had", and then slowly build up from there. Instead of trying to imagine a thing that someone else might or might not need. I've been slowly chipping away at a heroku alternative called Canine [1] for the better part of a year now on the side, and f…

so if i am content with my life, i can't create anything...

Nah you can, you just need to worry extra hard about finding product-market-fit or you’ll have something 100% useless on your hands.

Re: Being too ambitious is a clever form of self-sabotage

#194

Post by GianFabien »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #34
GianFabien wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "ambition" comes with a variety of connotations. >There are doers and there are talkers. There are those who use their ambition to define a goal and then work tirelessly to achieve it. Think of the mountaineer who plans and trains for decades to eventually ascend Mt Everest. Then there are those who share their ambition by talking about it. Seeking recognition, etc for "being ambitious". Staying with the mou…

The word “ambition” is indeed vague, and this is unfortunate, as there is a rich vocabulary full of distinction we ought to be using. (You see the same thing when people use “passionate” as a virtue, such as in job postings when what they mean is “enthusiastic”. Taken literally, you certainly don’t want passionate employees!) In the strict sense, ambition [0] is an inordinate love of honor. Perseverance [1], OTOH, is…

>In the strict sense, ambition [0] is an inordinate love of honor.

I wasn't familiar with that connotation of "ambition", yet it immediately rings the bell when thinking of many folks who loudly and frequently talk about their "ambition"; all talk, no walk.

Re: Being too ambitious is a clever form of self-sabotage

#195

Post by whatevertrevor »

the_af wrote: post #156
whatevertrevor wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't agree more, and not just on HN but the world at large. For the general populace including many tech people who are not ML researchers, understanding how convolutional neural nets work is already tricky enough. For non tech people, I'd hazard a guess that LLM/ generative AI is complexity-indistinguishable from "The YouTube/Tiktok Algorithm". And this lack of understanding, and in many cases lack of consciou…

> Just as an example: I've heard people express AI produced stuff to not qualify as art (philosophically and in terms of output quality) but at the same express deep concern how tech companies will replace artists... I don't think this is self contradictory at all. One may have beliefs about the meaning of human produced art and how it cannot -- and shouldn't -- be replaced by AI, and at the same time believe that co…

Yeah, I know that's the theory, but if AI generated art is slop then it follows that it can't actually replace quality art.

I don't think people will suddenly accept worse standards for art, and anyone producing high quality work will have a significant advantage.

And now if your argument is that the average consumer can't tell the difference, then well for mass production does the difference actually matter?

Re: Being too ambitious is a clever form of self-sabotage

#196

Post by the_af »

whatevertrevor wrote: post #195
the_af wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just as an example: I've heard people express AI produced stuff to not qualify as art (philosophically and in terms of output quality) but at the same express deep concern how tech companies will replace artists... I don't think this is self contradictory at all. One may have beliefs about the meaning of human produced art and how it cannot -- and shouldn't -- be replaced by AI, and at the same time believe that co…

Yeah, I know that's the theory, but if AI generated art is slop then it follows that it can't actually replace quality art. I don't think people will suddenly accept worse standards for art, and anyone producing high quality work will have a significant advantage. And now if your argument is that the average consumer can't tell the difference, then well for mass production does the difference actually matter?

Well, my main argument is that it's replacing humans, not that the quality is necessarily worse for mass produced slop.

Let's be cynical for a moment. A lot of Hollywood (and adjacent) movies are effectively slop. I mean, take almost all blockbusters, almost 99% action/scifi/superhero movies... they are slop. I'm not saying you cannot like them, but there's no denying they are slop. If you take offense at this proposition, just pretend it's not about any particular movie you adore, it's about the rest -- I'm not here to argue the merits of individual movies.

(As an aside, the same can be said about a lot of fantasy literature, Young Adult fiction, etc. It's by the numbers slop, maybe done with good intentions but slop nonetheless).

Superhero movie scripts could right now be written by AI, maybe with some curation by a human reviewer/script doctor.

But... as long as we accept these movies still exist, do we want to cut most humans out of the loop? These movies employ tons of people (I mean, just look at the credits), people with maybe high aspirations to which this is a job, an opportunity to hone their craft, earn their paychecks, and maybe eventually do something better. And these movies take a lot of hard, passionate work to make.

You bet your ass studios are going to either get rid of all these people or use AI to push their paychecks lower, or replace them if they protest unhealthy working conditions or whatever. Studio execs are on record admitting to this.

And does it matter? After all, the umpteenth Star Wars or Spiderman movie is just more slop.

Well, it matters to me, and I hope it's clear my argument is not exactly "AI cannot make another Avengers movie".

I also hope to have shown this position is not self-contradicting at all.

Re: Being too ambitious is a clever form of self-sabotage

#197

Post by Marsymars »

baxtr wrote: post #98

> At semester's end, all the best photos came from the quantity group. The quantity group learned something that cannot be taught: that excellence emerges from intimacy with imperfection, that mastery is built through befriending failure, that the path to creating one perfect thing runs directly through creating many imperfect things. This reminded me of Roger Federer, who has won 82% of all matches but only 54% of a…

> This reminded me of Roger Federer, who has won 82% of all matches but only 54% of all points.

This is in large part just a function of the way the rules of tennis work. e.g. consider gambling games, where there are games where the house only has a 1% edge, but if you play long enough, the casino will get 100% of your money.

Re: Being too ambitious is a clever form of self-sabotage

#198

Post by strogonoff »

manapause wrote: post #157
raynr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congratulations: you have successfully turned your cool idea into a chore. The article gave me a vague, off-topic sense of unease but your comment crystallised the feeling for me. I really wish less emphasis is placed on this kind of blue-sky, "strategic" thinking, and more placed on the "chores". Legwork, maintenance, step-by-step execution of a plan, issue tracking, perspective shifting etc. are all, in my opinio…

I’ve found the best strategies are the ones you can abandon. clearly defined tactics and an appropriate application of people and resources require a quarterback with an ability to audible. It’s possible to make no mistakes and still lose, it’s when people get offended about something they are wrong about that creates a tolerance for Pyrrhic victories.

> clearly defined tactics and an appropriate application of people and resources require a quarterback with an ability to audible

Can you rephrase?

Re: Being too ambitious is a clever form of self-sabotage

#199

Post by gsf_emergency_2 »

the_af wrote: post #148
gsf_emergency_2 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard that one way to pace is to... only consume your own stuff (aka dogfooding :) More grown-up way to do it is to consume your mates' stuff? (Trying to go from where TFA left off)

I think you must consume (I hate that word, but let's go with it) elsewhere. Someone said (maybe Stephen King in "On Writing"?) in order to be a writer you must be voracious reader, and there's no escaping this. It rings true to me. Of course the problem of taste growing much faster than skill remains, but I don't think the answer is to "consume" (yuck) less. I actually don't know if there's an answer.

>yuck

Some alts to choose from: "use","utilize","imbibe","process","assimilate","experience"

Re: Being too ambitious is a clever form of self-sabotage

#200

Post by baxtr »

Marsymars wrote: post #197
baxtr wrote: post #98

> At semester's end, all the best photos came from the quantity group. The quantity group learned something that cannot be taught: that excellence emerges from intimacy with imperfection, that mastery is built through befriending failure, that the path to creating one perfect thing runs directly through creating many imperfect things. This reminded me of Roger Federer, who has won 82% of all matches but only 54% of a…

> This reminded me of Roger Federer, who has won 82% of all matches but only 54% of all points. This is in large part just a function of the way the rules of tennis work. e.g. consider gambling games, where there are games where the house only has a 1% edge, but if you play long enough, the casino will get 100% of your money.

Yeah and that’s the point of the article I think. If you never swing your can’t never hit.

And I added the notion that even if you miss almost half of your swings you can still win big time.

Post reply on HN