61–70 of 97 posts
Interesting and well written, thanks for posting! That said, I think there's ample reason to file this under "writer steeped in SV-coded libertarianism unintentionally rediscovers the arguments in favor of socialism." The framework begins with a simple observation...: there are three types of leverage. I get where he's coming from, but "leverage" (AKA competitive advantage in a market?) seems like a woefully inadequa…
While the reasoning I believe to be utterly littered with weak arguments, I agree with the final conclusion/question of the author. But what the author isn't clearly saying is that he is describing a free market opposed to a planned economy, even if he doesn't specificly say that, that's the implication of the final question. And I am all for planned economy. I want to cooperate with my human fellows, not compete to…
I'll disagree. But fundamentally the problem of a centrally planned economy is whether or not you agree with the plan. I worked in the defense industry, specifically on weapons meant for export. At the time, I was considered a subject matter expert. Something that eventually got me selected to travel to a foreign nation that had purchased an update to that weapon we sold them. This country had an active internal conf…
It doesn't seem to matter whether an individual works for the weapons manufacturers, they're going to build them with my tax dollars and sell them to monsters whether i like it or not
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replacing expert opinion with engagement-baiting content from feed machines and hallucinating matrices seems to me is a part of the problem, and not the solution. Especially using TikTok to try and improve mental health issues seems a bit like trying to fight fire with a (edit: spelling) hose of jet fuel.
Sometimes it’s exactly the right medicine. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has all the classics
I know I shouldn't care at all. However I can't help but feel a little bit sad knowing that a (I suppose) once genuine blogger simply gave up and decided to delegate his thinking process to a token machine.
Personally I do care about punctuation, it's part of the (my) style and presentation, the way to convey meaning, etc. Still a reference to a classic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865024
Lots of bold assertions without evidence. Author claims Google's high salaries killed entrepreneurship. Is there any data to back this claim? Or the idea that democracy can't adapt to social media discourse; not everyone is chronically online. Politicians still respond to public sentiment to similar degree as they always have. Then there's this: > AI systems aren't just tools—they're deployed faster than we can devel…
The number of unicorns was 39 when the term was coined in 2013. Then there was 119 by 2018 and then there were 1284 unicorns by May 2024. From : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn_(finance)#History So not only is there no data to back up the authors claim but it is wrong and could be checked by looking at wikipedia. You don't have to be right, you can make claims, but when you make grand claims you should at least…
In fact since the number of billion dollar valuations goes up by an order of magnitude every few years we are on track for every person on earth to start a billion dollar corporation in a few short decades. This is proof that you could see on Wikipedia that entrepreneurship is doing great
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you should be getting mental health advice from LLMs, it has been shown that their sycophantic nature reinforces your own diagnoses not that of a professionals. Using an LLM in a field you're knowledgeable in would make you think twice about their accuracy in fields you are unable to know the correctness of personally. It will all sound very convincing, but may be a fundamentally flawed diagnoses. Anoth…
I’m well aware of the risks. But I think you have an unrealistically rosy picture of professionals’ diagnoses.
I imagine it will rely a lot on the pilot, and how well they understand those limitations. Perhaps the bigger risks are those without good understanding of LLMs who just treat it like an all knowing expert human.
Or maybe it just feels that way because the world is being fixed at unprecedented rates? For example I had the misfortune to needing help from the mental health community a decade ago. I sometimes think about how much easier that part of my life would have been if TikTok and Claude had existed back then. It’s easy to forget, but many of the institutions we’ve built over centuries are deeply dysfunctional and very muc…
I don't think you should be getting mental health advice from LLMs, it has been shown that their sycophantic nature reinforces your own diagnoses not that of a professionals. Using an LLM in a field you're knowledgeable in would make you think twice about their accuracy in fields you are unable to know the correctness of personally. It will all sound very convincing, but may be a fundamentally flawed diagnoses. Anoth…
And therapists don't? All the data used in diagnosis is self-reported feelings. All the progress made from seeing a therapist is also self-reported feelings.
Random chance might make more accurate diagnoses than any based on self-reported feelings.
Lots of bold assertions without evidence. Author claims Google's high salaries killed entrepreneurship. Is there any data to back this claim? Or the idea that democracy can't adapt to social media discourse; not everyone is chronically online. Politicians still respond to public sentiment to similar degree as they always have. Then there's this: > AI systems aren't just tools—they're deployed faster than we can devel…
When you read the title, "Why everything feels broken and what can we do", it is obvious op turned a me problem into an us problem. It's a common pitfall to take yourself out of the equation when you are about to make assertions without evidence to back them up. The title could have been written as: "Why do I feel everything is broken, and what can I do about it". you will end up writing a completely different post a…
It is strange finding this comment at the top given its fundamental misunderstanding of TFA.
Lots of bold assertions without evidence. Author claims Google's high salaries killed entrepreneurship. Is there any data to back this claim? Or the idea that democracy can't adapt to social media discourse; not everyone is chronically online. Politicians still respond to public sentiment to similar degree as they always have. Then there's this: > AI systems aren't just tools—they're deployed faster than we can devel…
Yes Google’s high salaries are part of a system that has been reworking entrepreneurship in Silicon Valley. This has been documented and discussed at length. Did you look for data?
Big tech pays in valuable stock, and salaries can reach upwards of 500k for relative rank and file positions (not rare one offs). Over a decade, that’s $5M. At the same time, VC firms have been holding companies private longer raising more rounds, which often dilutes the employee shares and reduces the “reward” for employees waiting for an IPO. If that new diluted IPO rewards an employee under $5M for a decade of employment, they were better off at Google/Meta/etc. Startups were always a lottery ticket, but if a “winning” ticket is less profitable than not playing, why join at all?
This plays directly into the thesis that the powerful are extracting additional resources at the expense of the cultural expectations and understandings. VC firms diluting employees is profitable for VCs, but it jeopardizes the Silicon Valley startup ecosystem if smart people prefer better compensation. Same with the recent AI aqui-hire controversies like Windsurf. Why join a startup if the CEO will take a billion dollar payout and leave the employees with worthless stock.