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

Playing in the Creek

hgreer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 122 posts

Re: Playing in the Creek

#61

Post by Gracana »

ripe wrote: post #32
luc4sdreyer wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the high velocities of steam locomotives might kill you This obviously seems silly in hindsight. Warnings about radium watches or asbestos sound less silly, or even wise. But neither had any solid scientific studies showing clear hazard and risk. Just people being good Bayesian agents, trying to ride the middle of the exploration vs. exploitation curve. Maybe it makes sense to spend some percentage of AI developmen…

> This [steam locomotives might kill you] obviously seems silly in hindsight. To be fair, many people did die on level crossings and by wandering on to the tracks. We learned over time to put in place safety fences and tunnels.

People thought that the speed itself was dangerous, that the wind and vibration and landscape screaming by at 25mph would cause physical and mental harm.

Re: Playing in the Creek

#62

Post by broabprobe »

migueldeicaza wrote: post #58

Vonnegut said it best: https://richardswsmith.wordpress.com/2017/11/18/we-are-here-...

huh, I wonder if he has relayed this story multiple times, I’m only familiar with this version, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12020560-talking-about-when...

“(talking about when he tells his wife he’s going out to buy an envelope) Oh, she says well, you’re not a poor man. You know, why don’t you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet? And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I’m going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope. I meet a lot of people. And, see some great looking babes. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And, and ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don’t know. The moral of the story is, is we’re here on Earth to fart around. And, of course, the computers will do us out of that. And, what the computer people don’t realize, or they don’t care, is we’re dancing animals.”

― Kurt Vonnegut

Re: Playing in the Creek

#64

Post by FollowingTheDao »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #59
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm retired as well, dislike what we have for the internet these days. In reflecting on my career I can say I got into it for the right reasons. That is, I liked programming — but also found out fairly quickly that not everyone could do it and so it could be a career path that would prove lucrative. And this in particular for someone who had no other likelihood, for example, of ever owning a home. I was probably not…

It went sour for the same reason that you were "satisfied that I had done enough to secure a home, tools for my hobbies, and had raised three girls — paid for their college"; Money and selfishness. You were looking out for you and your little group.

You got yours. Now what?

Re: Playing in the Creek

#65

Post by ido »

appleorchard46 wrote: post #55

Could someone explain the metaphor? I'm struggling to see the connection between AI and the rest of the post.

That AI is dangerous and the closer we get to the danger zone the better it would be if the companies developing these technologies understand it might be better to slow down and make sure it's safe vs pushing ahead at maximum speed.

Re: Playing in the Creek

#67

Post by cafard »

noduerme wrote: post #49
bombcar wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve often wondered how, with billions of dollars, do you know someone actually loves you and not your money? Complicated!

I've got a particularly strong view on this, because I've got a brother who tried to get wildly rich in some seriously unethical ways to impress our father, and still never got a single word of praise from him. And who's miserable and unloved and been betrayed by the women he married... who married him for his money. He's so desperate for someone to come admire his cars and his TVs, to just come hang out with him. He…

During most of my single days, I didn't have to pretend to be poor as fuck. On the other hand, I didn't really need to impress my father.

Re: Playing in the Creek

#68

Post by JKCalhoun »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #64
JKCalhoun wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm retired as well, dislike what we have for the internet these days. In reflecting on my career I can say I got into it for the right reasons. That is, I liked programming — but also found out fairly quickly that not everyone could do it and so it could be a career path that would prove lucrative. And this in particular for someone who had no other likelihood, for example, of ever owning a home. I was probably not…

It went sour for the same reason that you were "satisfied that I had done enough to secure a home, tools for my hobbies, and had raised three girls — paid for their college"; Money and selfishness. You were looking out for you and your little group. You got yours. Now what?

If you're trying to convince me that I was somehow part of the problem, it's not reaching me. I was as low(ly) as you can get in the "tech industry stack". While I still had some measure of agency as an engineer I added a crayon color picker to MacOS, added most of the PDF features people like in MacOS Preview. That was as much "driving the ship" as I was allowed — until I wasn't even allowed that.

I could have skipped sooner maybe?

Once I had kids though I found I had a higher tolerance for a job getting shittier, a lower tolerance for restarting in a new career. So I put up with a worsening job for them.

I quit the moment my last daughter left for college.

Re: Playing in the Creek

#69

Post by UncleMeat »

tvc015 wrote: post #36
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #33

The author seems concerned about AI risk -- as in, "they're going to kill us all" -- and that's a common LW trope. Yet, as a regular user of SOTA AI models, it's far from clear to me that the risk exists on any foreseeable time horizon. Even today's best models are credulous and lack a certain insight and originality. As Dwarkesh once asked: > One question I had for you while we were talking about the intelligence st…

Aren’t semiautonomous drones already killing soldiers in Ukraine? Can you not imagine a future with more conflict and automated killing? Maybe that’s not seen as AI risk per se?

The LessWrong-style AI risk is "AI becomes so superhuman that it is indistinguishable from God and decides to destroy all humans and we are completely powerless against its quasi-divine capabilities."

Re: Playing in the Creek

#70

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #63
hobs wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you jealous or mad that they didn't do more for you? Neither is a good look really. What have you done for me lately?

[flagged]

Sorry to hear that. Not our fault, and it won't make your life any better to be bitter about it. It certainly doesn't help you, in the least, to be attacking folks in a public professional forum.

You're also not the only one doing charity work.

Just sayin'.

Post reply on HN