21–30 of 37 posts
Despite the criticisms I do see the self-enterprising case... or maybe merely hope for
I don't, because such a model presumes every human has similar entrepreneurial capabilities and spirit. Neurodivergent humans may lack the social skills necessary for success in entrepreneurship, some humans may place a higher valuation on relationships than they could effectively trade upon via entrepreneurship, and others still may be of a persecuted group for whom entrepreneurship brings more risk than would be of…
In this world the neurodivergent is empowered, they no longer are charged with persuasion of their ideas to a team or corporation. They can build their ideas themselves and form a limited partnership with someone with the talents they lack.
Though I make it a point to describe the new economic order without regard to its desirability. However, other authors on the subject (e.g. Lysander Spooner, Rothbard, etc) would be pleased by the development in terms of its social welfare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is not written by claude code...only the website. And the article is not praising AI.
If that is true, you should state it at the top. Website vibe code, words written by a human. I have doubt that it's true though, it really sounds like AI writing.
I’m not sure I understand your argument for early stage venture going away? There’s more proven before funding with AI so the round has to be bigger since it’s inherently later stage by the time it reaches VC?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Y'know, you (the general 'you', not you specifically, coldbrewed) feel bad about your writing or blog because of the odd spelling error, or grammar issue, or repeated language, or maybe your points aren't clear enough, or maybe you're talking in the wrong tone... ...and then you read something like this , and realize, "Yeah, no, I have room for improvement , sure, but thank f*** I'm not like this ." The entire post r…
Again this piece is not written with GPT, feel free to ask any GPT. Ironically, maybe I should have to increase the appeal of my ideas. I chose my words carefully to communicate my ideas precisely.
Assuming you're the OP, and this is your blog, let me give you some feedback:
* Choosing your words carefully and communicating your ideas clearly are separate skills. You may have chosen the most precise language, but your ability to communicate ideas to as wide an audience as HN is lacking (judging by the comments)
* If you're going to invoke half a dozen rules, principles, laws, and/or proofs in the span of two pages, then you'd better link the associated Wikipedia articles for folks to follow along, at least until you've established a readership baseline. People read blogs for learning or entertainment, and if you're trying to teach a perspective, then you need to include copious links to this material; otherwise, your readership is going to turn into an echo chamber of similar academics (or people cosplaying as such, which is dangerous)
* Your narrative structure leaves a lot to be desired. Are you sharing an opinion piece about a potential AI-energized future? Or are you mocking AI detractors? Or are you digging up old memes? Maybe you're getting into the philosophy angle of capitalism and entrepreneurship? Or perhaps making a judgement about the perceived lack of "startup spirit" of modern workers? I honestly can't tell, because at times it feels like this single piece is touching upon all of them, but not going into anything more than surface-depth about any of them
* As far as reads go, it's a strugglebus. Your blog gives no insight into the author as a person, but the piece reads as if we should already know you and respect your authority on the topic because of credentials. Its sentences meander far too long before stopping, as if you're trying to consolidate complex thoughts that demand a paragraph of context into a single, lengthy, concise sentence - and leaving readers to figure it out on their own time, like a University Professor with tenure.
* Personal nitpick here, but your application of the Pareto Principle to human labor within corporations betrays your inexperience (at best) or your absence of empathy (at worst). More than likely, it displays a profound level of distance from work "in the trenches", and the associated lack of understanding of why corporations are formed, grow, function, struggle, wither, collapse, and die. Talk to more workers, and not just ones at your present company/title/rank/experience level/demographic brackets. Humans are messy creatures, not machines, and assuming they will behave as machines inside other machine-like structures is ignoring the inherent chaos of existence.
Fascinating read, very unique writing style. I’m not sure I agree that it will make people more entrepreneurial. People desire the stability a wage provides; it is incredibly difficult to set out on your own. Most people don’t have financial security to start one company so just because they can trial 20 in the same time now doesn’t change that. I do think it enables rapid prototyping via fast access to experts or co…
The self-employed is now able to rapidly develop their ideas while employed reducing their risk and cost.
Per VC, that's right and secondarily it's more difficult to justify earlier funding when one no longer needs to hire a substantial team. I expect the current major VC firms to get even bigger.
It would be better if the author could write plain English.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again this piece is not written with GPT, feel free to ask any GPT. Ironically, maybe I should have to increase the appeal of my ideas. I chose my words carefully to communicate my ideas precisely.
GPTs' historically aren't great at identifying their own work; if they could, AI-based cheating wouldn't be the problem it is at present. Assuming you're the OP, and this is your blog, let me give you some feedback: * Choosing your words carefully and communicating your ideas clearly are separate skills. You may have chosen the most precise language, but your ability to communicate ideas to as wide an audience as HN…
I wanted to avoid my experience but I worked at FAANG and helped create a multi-billion dollar corporation (from a handful of people to 1,500 people).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We would see neither squirrels nor crows since these criticisms miss the forest for the trees. But we can address them. > This is irrelevant for AI, because people throw more hardware at bigger problems GAI is a fixed problem which is Solomonoff Induction. Further Amdahl's law is a limitation on neither software nor a super computer. Both inference and training rely on parallelization, LLM inference has multiple seri…
I am new to Amdahl's law, but wouldn't a rearchitecture make it less relevant. For example if instead of growing an LLM that has more to do in parallel, seperate it into agents (maybe a bit like areas of the brain?). Is Amdahls law just a limit for the classic LLM architecture?
However, in this article I contend that those limitations have posed little adversity in the field given the success of the latest models. As a result, it may be a bit premature to be concerned about it.
That might be why people assume this is AI writing and frankly the same thing occurred to me about eight paragraphs in.
And your stated experience of working at FAANG and starting a multi-billion dollar company is so widespread you might actually be able to fill an entire boutique hotel with people who share it. As stego-tech says, you might wanna investigate the labor experience of people who, I dunno, have country or folk songs written about their jobs.
I mean, you're obviously a bright cat, but unfortunately merely being bright isn't the key to good communications. It's wanting other people to care about what you're saying and learning how to make them care.