HN user
A lot, most of the people actually who got into software for the past decade or so seem to have been motivated by money. They'd just as easily became doctors or lawyers. And it shows, a lot of software now is just some grey corporate kafkaesque mess.
Anything gets old. I feel like a lot of the problems my friends and I have with software work comes down to having to wrangle the same sort of nonsense week in, week out.
Alienation of the workers and all that. Profitable but psychologically damaging. We thrive when we get to be whole persons.
AI is just a way to market software. In the 70s and 80s we had "expert systems". Knowledge packed into software. Now when you buy hardware such as the new 3d xray systems for airports it can use high and low energy xray and density data to guess the substance of objects. This is an expert system, but it's trivialized to the point where it's not labelled as something special, it's just a feature.
This is a natural process. Hype up new stuff as "intelligent", "expert", "AI". Down the line it will be just another piece of software functionality. Doesn't mean anything special.
Right now "generative AI" is being heavily subsidized to gain market share. All these prompts generating text and image cost A LOT of money in training, inference, etc. If we were charged the real cost, it wouldn't seem like such a magical thing.
Cool stuff but I found hard to have to waddle through all the cutesy story telling (techie? really?) to get to the point. Poetic wordplay based on meaning vs sound is quite interesting but not that deep.
I think you mean blight
I really think we do our offspring a disservice by raising them like they're babies until they're 20.
Why? People and society in general seem to be doing much better nowadays...
People are perfectly capable of being self indulgent, asocial and neglect their health outside and develop perfect eyesight. I really don't see how the moral judgement is relevant here.
Cool trick for knowing when to use whom: if it can be replaced by he/she/they, it should be who. If it can be replaced by him/her/them, it should be whom. In this case, "whom spend more time outside", could not be written "them spend more time outside" but could be written "they spend more time outside" thus it should be "who spend more time outside".
It's slavery economics all over again. The geopolitics will shift to controlling select consumer markets and the best geography for keeping production and logistics costs low since globally there will be overproduction and underconsumption. Mercantilism in other words.
However for me, the most helpful by a mile was psilocybin. That whole "this too shall pass" thing is a real thing.
Also for me two big things. I have over a decade and a half of experience with LSD and psilocybin and it has in my view the role of what ecstatic religious experiences had in the past. I can't really bring myself to believe in any doctrine deeply enough to experience that anymore but psychedelics are very similar in terms of insight, epiphanies and catharsis.
I also just do some weird silly dancing around my kitchen to music
I've come to see this in my life as a sign I'm happy more than a cause. When I'm depressed I don't much listen to music or dance, and the opposite is also true.
it’s not all it’s cracked up to be
this person is beyond my capability to help
I think there's something to be said about the difference between "solving other people's problems" and "solving someone's problems". If the whole idea is to not be so invested into one life and get perspective, volunteering somewhere ought to be on a different league then trying to sort one specific person's life.
What about unintelligent humans is not an argument against stating that there is not intelligence in "artificial intelligence".