81–90 of 167 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The machine is still fun. It's the five layers of product growth between you and the machine that get tiring.
check the ping time between your nodes, whatever they are, in the same datacenter. I bet it will be at least 10-20ms. 15 years ago it was 0.1-0.2 ms.
I love computers too, but it doesn't resonate with me when people call AI "snake oil." The comparison suggests that the thing doesn't do what it's marketed to do. AI does more or less what it's marketed to do, sometimes badly. I still write code by hand. But LLMs have been a legitimately useful tool when I've wanted to dig into a new field like computer graphics, theoretical physics, or numerical analysis. Or even ju…
> The comparison suggests that the thing doesn't do what it's marketed to do. Because it doesn't. What AI is being sold as is incredibly different than what it actually does. I love AI. I spent years in grad school researching it because I loved it so much (it was never about the money to me). But what it is and what it can do is so different from what it is being sold as. Snake Oil is an apt comparison because it is…
I think the author simply grew up. It's easy to ignore all of the business stuff and just have fun when you are kid. Nothing is stopping the author from generating all sorts of crazy stuff with AI if he wants to live on the bleeding edge of technology.
I love computers too, but it doesn't resonate with me when people call AI "snake oil." The comparison suggests that the thing doesn't do what it's marketed to do. AI does more or less what it's marketed to do, sometimes badly. I still write code by hand. But LLMs have been a legitimately useful tool when I've wanted to dig into a new field like computer graphics, theoretical physics, or numerical analysis. Or even ju…
The snake oil is how the people at the top scream "in x years we won't need programmers" and end up proving themselves wrong time and time again. It's a real technology and it can do a lot, but it's being sold like snake oil while we're still figuring out what it's actually useful for and how to leverage it properly.
This is how it looks in your head, maybe. But in reality since Sonnet 3.5 - when the whole "no need programmers" started - no "years" have passed. Sonnet 3.5 came out on June 20, 2024. We are still 5 days away from the lowest possible "years". So even if you quoted them literally, they could not have possibly proved themselves wrong yet even once, let alone "time and time again".
I love computers too, but it doesn't resonate with me when people call AI "snake oil." The comparison suggests that the thing doesn't do what it's marketed to do. AI does more or less what it's marketed to do, sometimes badly. I still write code by hand. But LLMs have been a legitimately useful tool when I've wanted to dig into a new field like computer graphics, theoretical physics, or numerical analysis. Or even ju…
Isn't coding solved and we should all be out of a job by now according to Dario? Or what about AI 2027 -- we're only 6 months away! Time to build a bunker!! LLMs themselves aren't snake oil, they're just a useful technology, but all the marketing around them is FUD mixed with hype mixed with the most irritating people on the planet (the ones that aren't bots at least).
You sound like you have a quote in mind.
I think the author doesn't realize how gatekeepy this sentiment is; that they earned their love of "the computer", that it was formative to them, that they put all this uncomfortable effort into learning how to program, and thus (subtextually) they should have a say in how other people use "the computer".
N... no? The guy's pretty clearly anti "attention economy bullshit", anti plagiarism-machine, and of the opinion that it is a very good thing that it is easier than it was when he was young for people to learn to love 'the computer'.
From the end of the "The Smell of Ink on Cheap Paper" section:
> It would be easy to say that it’s just nostalgia that makes me lament what was lost in the transition to the Internet, and it’s not like print was spared the rot of capitalism that has made online geek spaces into ad-ridden, engagement-maximising cesspools. But I am glad that I was able to do my initial discovery in a world devoid of pop-ups, auto-playing ads, click-bait, and incessant pleas to “like and subscribe”. ...
From the final section, entitled "A Life Well Lived?":
> I can relate to what Chris Person said when he expressed his frustrations about how these slick conmen are using the technology I adore as tools for exploitation and disempowerment. The Internet, built by idealists on a foundation of openness and community, has become a mire of dark patterns and gardens with ever thicker walls, desperate to keep people within an ecosystem where their attention is the prized commodity. I’ve witnessed a nerdy space full of nerds be invaded by marketers, callous capitalists, and “brogrammers”—exaggerating the worst, most toxic, aspects of geek culture in their pursuit of money and power. I’ve poured hundreds of hours of work into open source projects only to have it all be scraped into a plagiarism machine and then aggressively sold back to me. It feels that the hope I had for the future technology could give us, the naïve and starry-eyed fantasies I fostered in my youth, has been eroded when faced with a reality where the thing I love can make a lot of money for people who don’t care for any of it.
> Then again, it’s not all bad. We’ve come a long way from the time when computers were seen as expensive and exclusive tools, and the unwelcoming domain of elitist men. Programming—with the empowerment that it brings—is more accessible than ever and there seems to be a strong cultural shift in the techie spaces away from centralised services and onto federated, self-hosted, and in many other ways more free alternatives. The Internet seems to becoming more and more locked down, but us weirdos will just stay in our weird corners and will find means to circumvent any restrictions put on us. My affection towards technology made me an ostracised outsider when I was younger, then it condescendingly made me into a “rockstar”, and now it’s looking like my peers are ushering in the end of civilised society. So I’m ready to go back into being just some strange guy with strange interests, doing silly things people don’t understand and don’t care to.
Perhaps Sir should go back and re-read the article without looking for hidden meaning?
I think the author simply grew up. It's easy to ignore all of the business stuff and just have fun when you are kid. Nothing is stopping the author from generating all sorts of crazy stuff with AI if he wants to live on the bleeding edge of technology.
Generating things and going through the process of learning how it works and making it from scratch are very, very different. The feeling each leaves you with are also very different. If the only thing you care about is output, then yea maybe generating a bunch of stuff feels great, but if you care about the process, learning, and discovery, just prompting an llm doesn't feel great.
Only later I learned that this, ehat I was missing in the analog world back then, was what made up the core of a turing machine.
So this beauty is still the same for me. Just the sheer amount of state that is available and provided by others make the concept much less powerful than back in the day.
Now AI brings that back a bit, by finding the right items that you can keep and iterate on. But we tend to let AI also do rhe iteration and that introduces that non-deterministic character that the computer had overcome.
So, no wonder, that I, and quite a few others, at the moment, still mostly use AI for finding and typing code to describe the structures for the machine, but keep trying to define the iterations ourselves, guaranteeing clear insight and access to the state we are trying to work with.
Everything else is more like working with an assistant back then (or today), extending your actionable potential instean of your mind. And depending on how you see the world or what the tasl at hand might be, you might prefer one over the other, control over action, insight and perspective over tinkering with the matter to push it somehow in the right direction or implementing a known process.
But that state thing, still priceless, timeless. The right augmentation to our fuzzy brains and better than paper, since, who thought, we can express the algorithms in the same way.
So, I guess I will always see this beauty, even in a simple flip-flop, coin, switch and any array thereof, and anything that can be controlled by that binary configuration.
I think the author doesn't realize how gatekeepy this sentiment is; that they earned their love of "the computer", that it was formative to them, that they put all this uncomfortable effort into learning how to program, and thus (subtextually) they should have a say in how other people use "the computer".
People with impure motives are running the show now, and they're the number one reason why technology sucks now. Everything is dumbed down, enshittified, growth hacked, attention grabbing, surveillance capitalism, information brokerage, advertising. It was never about the computers, it was always about money. The computers are not only unloved, they are actively being hidden from the user. The computer does not matter, only the "user experience" matters. Users are not meant to use computers anymore, they are meant to interact with the scripted flows created by corporations, and nothing more. Computers are the enemy in this world, they are too powerful, leave them unchecked and they can wipe out the business models of corporations.
I definitely think someone who genuinely loves computers should have a say in how computers are used. That's the exact sort of person I'd elect as a regulator or lawmaker. There is no substitute for giving a shit. Someone who cares about computers more than money wouldn't have let things degenerate to this point.
Even if it is gatekeeping, what does it matter? It's not a problem. Computers are world changing technology, and they don't deserve to be reduced to vehicles for corporate advertising. They could be more, and should be more. And if gatekeeping is necessary, then so be it.