761–770 of 798 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the kind of person we have controlling the future of AI. He and Elon Musk. Between these two we are assured complete destruction.
What is wrong with Musk again?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ironically, that’s too simplistic. Simplicity is only virtuous in an explanation if the explanation itself is not contradicted by reality. Unbound from reality, simplicity is dangerously seductive because it’s easy and wrong.
very glib (though true) - but do you have any evidence in this case as to what reality is? If so, could you please explain how the given statement is "contradicted by reality"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your reg dates are 2012 and 2014. As you know, this is hacker news. not c-level news, not middle management news.. hacker news.
Like I said, we all have roles to play. I suppose you missed that. May you learn along the way in your career.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your reg dates are 2012 and 2014. As you know, this is hacker news. not c-level news, not middle management news.. hacker news.
Thinking about this, can you think of a great hacker who isn't C-level? Look at the most famous programmers of all time, or people who've made the most popular tools like Ruby on Rails, and they're all C-level.
Yukihiro Matsumoto, Satoshi Nakamoto, Linus Torvalds, Jeff Dean, Aaron Swartz, Richard Stallman, Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, Guido van Rossum, Yann LeCun, Andrej Karpathy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your reg dates are 2012 and 2014. As you know, this is hacker news. not c-level news, not middle management news.. hacker news.
That's exactly the point. I'm C level, but at heart, I'm a hacker and and engineer, and have been for what, 24 years now (sobering). Reflecting on this isn't a criticism (though we all know how touchy engineer-types can be) -- it's just an acknowledgment. To E-types, firing is loss of job, loss of livelihood, to C-types, it's a reposition of an asset, a reassignment of a resource to a new project. All we're doing her…
I am unfamiliar with this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing I've universally noticed in unintelligent/conspiratorial political analysis is they think you can explain everything by "following the money", like here. These people are sometimes known as "low-information voters". It's amazing how much this is actually never true. Politics is largely about sincerely-held ideologies.
Take a look at the highly conspiratorial website https://www.opensecrets.org for an example of how i enquire by looking at sources and money flow helping me realise most politicians are bought by lobby groups working for the owning classes and vote thereafter, not "sincere belief in ideology". This "you're just a conspiracy nut" perspective for looking at actual networks of power and sources, became common after jour…
Generally when I see people use this they're misreading it. For instance, they'll see donations from people working at Google to a campaign and think they're donations "by Google" to a campaign, but companies can't donate to campaigns. It's also unlikely politicians sincerely care that much about a campaign donation capped at $3000.
In general if you think things are about the money you should be happy with politics, because the highest-raising politicians are Bernie Sanders and crew with $25 Actblue donations. But what actually happens is that they raise more money than Republican politicians and then still lose elections in red states. Republican voters and politicians both actually believe what they're saying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing I've universally noticed in unintelligent/conspiratorial political analysis is they think you can explain everything by "following the money", like here. These people are sometimes known as "low-information voters". It's amazing how much this is actually never true. Politics is largely about sincerely-held ideologies.
> Politics is largely about sincerely-held ideologies Close. Politics is about interests. It’s about who gets the resources and who gets status and dignity and who doesn’t. There are a lot of sincerely held ideologies that rise up around those questions. But if you don’t analyze politics through that lens you’re fucking delusional.
These three things are all opposing; you can't "and" them. And you shouldn't put the first one first, as people in the first world are generally too rich to care about it, and when they do care they never put any work into figuring out what would benefit them.
Thus you get votes for president based on gas prices, trust fund kids being communists, Mississippi continually voting 100% for the party that keeps them at the bottom of every state ranking, people thinking the Iraq War was for oil, people thinking the current Ukraine War is good for Russia, and so on.
nb when I said sincerely held ideologies I meant for the people in politics; voters largely have sincerely held nonsensical positions they haven't thought about much, or in other words are "cross-pressured".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing I've universally noticed in unintelligent/conspiratorial political analysis is they think you can explain everything by "following the money", like here. These people are sometimes known as "low-information voters". It's amazing how much this is actually never true. Politics is largely about sincerely-held ideologies.
That's an incredibly unintelligent "everything is fine move along" comment. Seeing how it contains nothing of value whatsover, I'm surprised it's this short, usually they're several paragraphs. These people are sometimes known as the lazy ones amongst the unintelligent ones.
That's why it's a minority position. Most people aren't low-openness conspiracy theorists.
It's like the midwit meme where the people at both ends agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but...So any counterpoint to your AGI view is irrational pessimism? I'm not bein doomer, this is just what I see going forward. I think AGI can be positive, but it depends vastly how we configure that. And this is not the path that I see is best. That's it. I get if you're a 100% AGI optimist and see any dissent to that as out of touch, but it's a leeetl disrespectfully reductive to try t…
“DisRespect and insult” is a strange take on strategic advice. And While I’m already probably on a few lists, I don’t feel safe spelling it all out
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an incredibly unintelligent "everything is fine move along" comment. Seeing how it contains nothing of value whatsover, I'm surprised it's this short, usually they're several paragraphs. These people are sometimes known as the lazy ones amongst the unintelligent ones.
The average normie "everything is fine" position is not that intelligent. The problem is that the first level cynical reaction is /even worse/. That's why it's a minority position. Most people aren't low-openness conspiracy theorists. It's like the midwit meme where the people at both ends agree.