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

We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

unix.foo

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 283 posts

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#241

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

kibwen wrote: post #77
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is already shocking to a certain degree seeing very young people not being able to use a vehicle in the narrow sense because all they ever learned were the mechanical controls of the so-called automobile. We could do this forever.

No. No economy ever had essentially every single major company spending a significant fraction of its budget on hiring auto mechanics. Which is to say, for all the changes the automobile wrought, the role of the computer in industrialized society eclipses it tenfold, a hundredfold, a thousandfold. For an individual in many modern societies, being denied access to a car is already effectively crippling, and the idea o…

I would say you need to read some history.

While the role of computers in industrialized society has been substantial, there's still a pretty good argument that the rise of motorized transportation, refridgeration, electricity, the telegram and antibiotics each exceed the impact of computer technology.

In 3-500 years we might have enough perspective on this to really judge it; I'm pretty sure that all we can say right now is "don't know".

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#242

Post by antod »

pram wrote: post #17

"To play a computer game in in the 1990s, you first had to understand how the computer worked. So you learned. You opened files like autoexec.bat and you read them." Ehh I dunno about that. I rarely, if ever, had to mess with any of that junk after Windows 3... I also didn't have to deal with any IRQ issues. So seems like it was already mostly abstracted in the "1990s" lol

Also, the quote didn't really apply in the 80s. Getting a game running on a C64, Spectrum, Amiga, ST or Apple II didn't involve understanding the computer.

That autoexec crap was unique to DOS PCs. DOS was a uniquely crappy experience in a lot of different ways.

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#243

Post by rmunn »

dan-bailey wrote: post #23
Stefan-H wrote: post #6

There was a sweet spot with computer technologies for some decades where hobbyists could afford to experiment and even push the envelope in the nascent field of computing - similar to genetic radiation, many niches were formed and rapidly filled. The computing biome has evolved to the point where most entities are not operating at the low-level abstractions that were once the only means of interacting with the comput…

This is definitely true, and we definitely need something similar again. I've been using a game ("The Farmer Was Replaced") as a jumping-off point for teaching the kids Python, but the more I think about it, the more I think that they need some sort of hardware package similar to an old Apple //e that gives them just enough rope to hang themselves. It was easy, back in the day, to learn a ton (even assembler) on a sy…

> ... I think they need some sort of hardware package similar to an old Apple //e that gives them just enough rope to hang themselves.

Something like https://miniscript.org/MiniMicro/ perhaps? It's a virtual machine rather than real hardware, but apart from using disk image files instead of real floppy drives, the experience should be rather similar to what we* grew up on.

* Mine was a KayPro II running CP/M rather than an Apple //e, but you get the idea.

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#244

Post by marak830 »

steelframe wrote: post #235
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm one of the greybeards who has the 2400 BAUD modem negotiation tone sequences emblazened in my neurons. Making the jump from 300 baud to 2400 felt like magic!

I started on a faulty 1200 BAUD modem that would only connect at 300 BAUD. And I used to load my programs off a cassette tape. If we keep this up, someone's bound to jump in with a brag about memory cores and punchcards.

I don't think they will be jumping anywhere TBH.

(young-un with the 28.8k starter here, so I just need some stretching to keep up with you old fellas :P)

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#245

Post by StanislavPetrov »

steelframe wrote: post #235
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm one of the greybeards who has the 2400 BAUD modem negotiation tone sequences emblazened in my neurons. Making the jump from 300 baud to 2400 felt like magic!

I started on a faulty 1200 BAUD modem that would only connect at 300 BAUD. And I used to load my programs off a cassette tape. If we keep this up, someone's bound to jump in with a brag about memory cores and punchcards.

My friend's dad got a 1200 baud modem when they first came out for some obscene amount of money. Back then Compuserve used to charge by your connection speed. I was mowing lawns to pay $6.25 (~$20) an hour to play British Legends at 300 baud and he was paying ~$12 (~$38!!) an hour to connect at 1200. Plus phone bill fees, which weren't negligible back then, even for local calls!

https://www.chicagotribune.com/1987/05/31/compuserve-sees-th...

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#246

Post by roywiggins »

DrProtic wrote: post #225
no_multitudes wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "they will be as easy with it as you are with the light switch you never once thought about." This metaphor doesn't really feel coherent. > "What is dying is acquaintance." This is a very odd topic sentence. > "The kids coming up will not feel this as a loss, and they are not wrong not to." Claude loves stacking big piles of negatives and arguing both sides of everything. > "I went looking the other night for a rec…

The problem here is, you might be right, it makes sense. But, make it more approachable. Tell people why you think that, elaborate. Don't assume everyone is on the same page.

My problem is that my personal AI detector running on wetware just goes ping and it's hard to articulate why. I agree with the person you're replying to on all points but also, when I think something is AI, it's very much just a little brain ping that I would have to laboriously try to work backwards from.

LLM text often just is missing the cadence of human-written text. It never slows down or speeds up; it keeps a relentless pace. Sure, a human can write like that, and I'm sure people do, but I find it enervating to read, whether it was a human or an AI that wrote it.

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#247

Post by roywiggins »

ryandrake wrote: post #239
cylo wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that I’m the author, I promise you I’m a real human. It’s not AI. Obviously there’s a rise in pure AI writing but I find these sort of services that “analyze” content more harmful than good.

Pretty much every HN article now has someone in the comment section chiming in to complain "This is AI".

Sometimes that's me. I wish more submissions didn't read like AI. I worry that people can't detect tiresomely LLMy output and upvote it to the front page. I'm not mad or anything, I just find the internet less and less useful, because so much that circulates pings my personal AI detector (running in my skull). Sometimes I just close the tab in frustration but sometimes I comment, because it sucks.

(I don't actually care that much if it is LLM text, I care when something reads like it is, because it means everyone writing blogs using this style sounds like everyone else. it's alienating!)

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#248

Post by roywiggins »

no_multitudes wrote: post #237
MajesticHobo2 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it have to be deliberate? It's not surprising that people exposed to output from LLMs will unconsciously pick up their linguistic habits.

Maybe it isn't deliberate! I was asking out of curiosity. This reads as extremely LLM-y to me, so if it was purely human-written I am curious about the process.

Even more worrying if it's not deliberate and we are all just naturally writing like that now.

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#249

Post by switchbak »

tines wrote: post #164
switchbak wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is - everyone complains about AI stealing our attention and understanding. But you can just as easily use an LLM as a tool to gain a deeper understanding. It's just the default path for most folks is "Hey clanker, do the thing" rather than "Hello clanker, please tell me about how that thing works". I've done at least a little of the latter, and it's amazing how underrated it is as an educational tool - espe…

And you can use a TV to read books, but nobody does. Every technology has ways it can be used, and ways it wants to be used. This one wants to be used in a way that produces outcomes we won't like.

That’s the “diets don’t work” line. I’m not denying that most people use AI for the path of least resistance, but I am saying that there’s more potential than just that, and it’s almost entirely overlooked in the broad debate.

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#250

Post by switchbak »

apsurd wrote: post #51
switchbak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely - you used to have to control the richness of the fuel mixture manually. You used to have to crank it to start it, manually interact with a clutch to shift gears, etc. I appreciate the tactile joy of interacting with simple systems like those, but most times I just want to get where I'm going. Freeing my attention from those tasks allows me to pay more attention to the (inattentive) drivers around me, and…

My read is that there does seem a clear difference between simple -> advanced machines vs simple -> "smart" machines. Nearly every smart machine is bullshit enshitification-in-waiting. Rent-seeking in-waiting. Smart tvs, smart cars with touch-screens. some would argue apple products. These things proclaim advancements but what they really do is black-box and dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator, then…

I think the dumbing down of things is a closely related yet adjacent issue. And I too absolutely despise the enshitification you’re describing.

I drove a BMW rental recently, and I swear it felt like I was driving around a toy. Such obvious HCI usability concerns, even my wife (non techie) was appalled and able to call out many obvious and stupid design decisions. It felt like a vibe coded car. A vision of the future, no doubt.

Post reply on HN