[deleted]
The leverage arbitrage: Why everything feels broken
81–90 of 97 posts
Re: The leverage arbitrage: Why everything feels broken
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>I know I shouldn't care at all. 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
Oh I do care punctuation (at least when I'm writing long-form stuff). I mean I shouldn't have cared enough to look at the past articles or comment here. The proper response to AI submissions is ignore and optionally flag.
Re: The leverage arbitrage: Why everything feels broken
#83Earlier 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 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. 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 feel…
To an extent, but the words you give an LLM are the entirety of what it has to go on, and again they are sycophantic. If you tell it you have depression, and you insist, it will do its best to agree. In the exact same conversation, you could later convince it you have schizophrenia instead. A human wouldn't buy it.
A trained psychologist is going to use their procedural training to diagnose you. Not text input, they are asking you questions with subtext, and you may not even realise what they learned about you from your answer. With an LLM, you are loading it's context with your world view and it will go off that.
Re: The leverage arbitrage: Why everything feels broken
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is one horror I have it is one of the really mentally unwell people I knew when growing up pairing up with an LLM that feeds into everything they say. LLMs are great for truth seekers, who know how to deal with the yes-sayer-mentality of the chatbot. If there is one type of person I am 100% sure cannot deal with that it would be mental health patients. That doesn't mean I don't think LLMs couldn't be used fo…
I fully agree that the night seems dark. But having recovered from a state that many institutionalized professionals deemed hopeless I have a different perspective. Have you seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? I think it serves as a good model to explain why we can both be right. You’re looking at the average effect of the institution across every minor character that appears in frame and deem it positive, and it w…
I agree that institutionalized everything can develope blind spots that makes those institutions work broadly, but can't help (and in extreme cases hurts) individuals within said institutional context — although that doesn't really contradict my point.
Just because getting kicked into the head occasionally helps someone with a neorological defect, doesn't mean we should recommend getting kicked in the head by a horse as a remedy, if you follow my point. It means we need to figure out why it helped those people and maybe find a way that doesn't require an equiestrian.
And in the case of therapy we already have a lot of knowledge what works and what doesn't. Therapeutic psychiatrists typically can't give patients the time and attention they would require for structural reasons, so LLMs have real potential here. But that LLM needs to know how to deal with patients in different conditions. E.g. imagine a patient with a schizophenic disorder convincing a LLM into feeding into their paranoid schizophrenia. My experience with LLMs so far is, that they would happily just do this, if you're persistent enough..
Re: The leverage arbitrage: Why everything feels broken
#85I agree with the premise and appreciate the definitions that capture a situation that's still being understood, but the solutions are vapid.
"Awareness" as an option for an information saturated society is not the pathway for anything right now
Re: The leverage arbitrage: Why everything feels broken
#86> Something fundamental has shifted in how power works, and most of our institutions haven't noticed. We're living through what might be called "leverage arbitrage divergence"—a growing gap between how fast some actors can change the world and how fast others can respond to those changes.
I disagree that the way «Power» works has fundamentally shifted. This is a classic pattern of hegemony/insurgence/counter-insurgence.
Re: The leverage arbitrage: Why everything feels broken
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Your broader point may stand but that’s not a counter argument if you give the original claim the benefit of the doubt: it can reasonably be interpreted as referencing lifestyle oriented businesses, niche b2b companies, anything small growth with a low ceiling. Counting unicorns only serves to bolster that point : those are large VC fueled ships which operate on a completely different level. Because it is clear at fo…
What do businesses need? Startup capital. What’s a good way to obtain it? Having a high salary and saving.
The counter argument is that high salaries enable more people to save and take risk rather than just those that start out wealthy.
The main counter is that people get comfortable and don’t take risks is definitely true, but I’m not sure how much that impacts the amount of entrepreneurship that would have otherwise happened.
Re: The leverage arbitrage: Why everything feels broken
#88When 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…
Seems like you've fixated on a detail about the title and have ignored the substance of the post. Whether or not some everyone agrees that "everything feels broken" doesn't really matter.
But the substance of the post appears to be word-salad and I've already had my five-a-day.
Re: The leverage arbitrage: Why everything feels broken
#89While 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…
> And I am all for planned economy. In this day and age it is obsurd not to this.
"Well, did it work for those people?"
"No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but... but it might work for us."
Re: The leverage arbitrage: Why everything feels broken
#90While 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…
> And I am all for planned economy. In this day and age it is obsurd not to this. "Well, did it work for those people?" "No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but... but it might work for us."
This classic reductionist argument is so trivial it could havr been automatically posted by an LLM.
The majority of those people say they regreted the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not sure where your fantasy facts of "did not work" come from.