wcfrobert

I like the _idea_ of reading continental philosophy, and then I opened up Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Here is a random sentence from a random page verbatim:

"Spirit contains this actuality here because the extremes whose unity it is just as immediately each have the determination to be for itself its own actuality. Their unity is subverted into aloof aspects, each of which is for the other an actual object excluded from it. The unity thus emerges as a mediating middle which is excluded and distinguished from the departed actuality of the two aspects; thus it itself has an actual objectivity differentiated from its aspects, and it is for them, i.e., it is existent. The spiritual substance enters into existence, first while it has gained for its aspects the sort of self-consciousness which knows this pure self to be an actuality which is immediately in force, and therein it just as immediately knows that it is this actuality only through the alienating mediation. Through the former, the moments are refined into the self-knowing category and thereby are refined right up to the point that they are moments of spirit. Through the latter, spirit comes into existence as spirituality."

wtf is Hegel saying?

People say jobs with the "human touch" will stay relevant after AGI. And I'm like have you seen customer service? I can't even find the phone number anymore on amazon

I think this is what makes Asian food more exciting and innovative. No whiff of elitism. No status-signaling or having to appeal to the taste of King Louis the 14th. Just cook stuff and make it taste good for as many people as possible; let the market decide what's good and let cuisines intermingle and evolve organically.

Striving for authenticity is essentially a pause button. While we should absolutely preserve culturally important recipes[1], we also need to move forward and invent the stuff that people in 2080 will call 'authentic.'

Bring on the durian pizza, the strawberry Mapo tofu, and the Kraft singles in Korean army stews. Food is meant to be enjoyed. Don't gatekeep and keep the performative taste-signaling to wine and coffee please.

---

[1] As a side note, a lot of culturally important recipes are actually imports. Tomatoes weren't even available in Italy until the 1600s, Neither did Ireland have potatoes until they were brought over from the New World. Most contemporary Chinese dishes were created in the last century; fish and chip was brought over to the UK by Jewish immigrants; the famous red peppers of Sichuan didn't make its way to China until like the 1600s; Japanese tempura was brought over by Portuguese Catholic missionaries; banh mi has its origin in Vietnam during French colonial rule; national dish of UK is chicken tikka masala; al pastor tacos was brought over by Lebanese immigrants; pad thai was literally invented by the government of Thailand to foster Thai identify. List goes on.

I read pg's collection of essays (Hackers and Painters) in my 20s, and it single-handedly prevented me from being radicalized by leftist ideologies. The one insight from the book that I will always remember from the book is this: if you want to be rich, make something people want. Money is fiat to the value you've generated in growing the economic pie. It is in fact possible gain wealth ethically.

However, there are several addendum to this argument:

1. Most billionaires are hedge fund or private equity managers whose name no one has ever heard of. They provide liquidity or allocate capital or something. It's actually a major PR failure that people think Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk when they think of billionaires; If we can ignore their character for a second, these guys are actually hyper-productive and they've created immense wealth for society and are compensated in a power law sort of way.

2. Rich people make money with money - in the form of dividends, interest, rent, etc. Poor people trading labor for money. Salary only scales linearly; therefore, generating value for society is only half of the equation, you must also have ownership, or slowly invest your earned capital to eventually make money with money (i.e. retirement).

3. There must be a growing economy, otherwise it's a zero-sum game; a fixed-sized pie. In a stagnant economy, the customers you gained are customers another company lost. The wealth just shuffle hands from laid off workers to your employees. I think this is why Jeff Bezos once remarked that a stagnant economy is incompatible with free democratic society.

4. There must be a new frontier, otherwise the chance of success is pretty much zero. Software is this generation's new frontier. There are no bars to entry. You just need a laptop and the skill to arrange symbols on a screen in the right order. It's literally alchemy. On the other hand, non-software startups can't just do things. In many cultures, maybe due to their lack of growth, "entrepreneur" is actually very low status. It's synonymous with ne'er-do-well who can't find proper work. In the case of USSR before its collapse, it's synonymous with literal thieves and black market thugs.

Approximate monthly cost of owning a car in the city:

Lease or loan: $350

Parking in city: $300

Car insurance: $180

Gas: $120

License/Registration: $42 (~$500 per year)

Maintenance: $17 (~$200 per year)

If you live in the city and you can afford not driving, please put that extra $1000/month into your brokerage or HYSA

"Now I have CLIs that one-shots bugs across distributed systems for me. Bugs that I couldn't solve in the past. Bugs that would take 2 days of full-time debugging. Bugs across distributed systems that lack distributed observability. 90% of the bugs are one-shotted now, including bizarre race conditions, unexpected corner-cases, third-party integration issues, undocumented API edge cases, everything. I hardly have to intervene."

The fact that the author can articulate _why_ the AI is getting so good is kind of a moat for specialist, right? Imagine a layman prompting without domain expertise:

"There is likely a race condition here + [long-winded explanation and analysis carefully guiding the AI]"

Degenerates to:

"This button is not working, please fix. I don't care about code. Decide yourself"

Degenerates to:

"Claude make me money"

This is so accurate wtf!?

- "United States is a service and information economy": Finance, real estate, insurance, SaaS.

- "Nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away": here's a video from Smarter everyday on how atrophied manufacturing has become in the US: [I Tried to Make Something in America](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZTGwcHQfLY)

- "Technological power in the hands of very few": AWS, Google Cloud, Azure.

- "People have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority [...] unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true": Fun house mirror of Twitter/X. Attention economy. Algorithm that maximizes engagement. AI Slop. Deepfakes. War in Iran.

- "our critical faculties in decline": NYT Article [Why U.S. Test Scores Are in a Generation-Long Decline](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/13/upshot/test-scores-school...)

- "the 30-second sound bites now down to 10 seconds or less": TikTok, Instagram reels

- "credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition": RFK Jr, Tate, Fuentes, conspiracies, Qanon, Vaccine hesitancy.

Turn three: the company that fired its workers to save money discovers that its customers were, in aggregate, other companies’ workers. Revenue growth stalls. The AI subscription that was supposed to be an investment in efficiency turns out to be a contribution to the destruction of its own market.

If we take it to the extreme, the final solution to this problem is secessionism: a fully non-human AI economy where the customers and providers are both robots. Why fund public education or research or healthcare? Just build more data centers. A billion dollars and a bunker in the Southern Hemisphere will not save anyone. Capital is not a moat in this hypothetical non-humane world. Whence do you derive your authority? How can you trust your body guard? You and what army? An army of robots/drones? What if they get hacked? What if the AI researchers get alignment right and Claude refuses your request?

It's all so obscene. Instead, why don't we try to protect human dignity and move towards a more humane future?

"Whatever its flaws, the writing you find online is authentic. It's not mystery meat cooked up out of scraps of pitch letters and press releases, and pressed into molds of zippy journalese." - PG in 2005

Look how low we've stooped in 20 years... Online writing used to be wholly authentic. Now it's like finding a needle in an AI slop haystack.

This entire thread is drenched in class consciousness and I am here for it.

On point 1: I generally agree with you about the benefits of technological progress on a long enough time horizon. But what about the short term? What mechanism of redistribution are you assuming for the displaced workers? A scary number of Americans live pay check to pay check. How many will be forced to default on their mortgage or withdraw from their retirement savings? How many can afford to go back to school to retrain to be a plumber or nurse?

Breaking eggs to make omelette sounds good unless you're the egg. There's an excellent quote from Thomas Friedman: "when you get laid off, the unemployment rate is not 3.4%, it's a 100%". It's great to fantasize about future utopian abundance, but most people live in the present and most will be presently ground to powder. All technologies have a barbelling effect. Redistribution of surplus does not happen by default. The tumult and disruption may last a decade or more. And the fruits, if we make it to the other side, will not be for this generation to enjoy. The textile workers did not cheer for the loom, because they were not the ones that enjoyed the joy of cheap Uniqlo or H&M t-shirts.

On point 2: Many people derive meaning and identity from their work. Acquiring expertise, feeling useful, contributing to society, honing your craft are all things that leads to a good life. It could be that after AI we will all write poetry in the morning, go fishing in the afternoon, and paint in the evenings, but I don't think most people are like this, it's certainly not the way I am wired.

On point 3: "utopian AI is so good that words can't describe it so it can't and shouldn't be stopped". I do not think utopian abundance is guaranteed just by copy-pasting data centers across the globe. There is a non-negligible chance that things go really badly.

Lastly, I think the usage of the word "class" shouldn't automatically be linked to "Marxist ideology". This is cheap rhetoric: "class" --> associated with Marx --> communist loonies of the 20th century --> therefore disregard all argument presented.

"If there is less deep poverty in San Francisco than in New York, is it not because San Francisco is yet behind New York in all that both cities are striving for? When San Francisco reaches the point where New York now is, who can doubt that there will also be ragged and barefooted children on her streets?" - Henry George in 1879

It's a frightening thing to realize that utopian abundance and abject poverty can co-exist in perfect harmony. One does not contradict the other. Heaven and hell are next-door neighbors. If anything, this is the default state of affairs for most civilizations throughout history.

I think the answer is to do multi-disciplinary work.

Venture outside of pure theoretical math. Learn some other domain knowledge and combine it with your mathematical ommph. That's the easiest way to make an impact now rather than potentially decades later.

"Requirements documents that were once a page are now twelve. Status updates that were once three sentences are now bulleted summaries of bulleted summaries. Retrospective notes, post-incident reports, design memos, kickoff decks: every artifact that can be elongated is, by people who do not read what they produce, for readers who do not read what they receive."

Great article. The "elongation" of workplace artifacts resonated with me on such deep level. Reminded me of when I had to be extra wordy to meet the 1000 minimum word limit for my high school essays. Professional formatting, length, and clear prose are no longer indicators of care and work quality (they never were, but in the past, if someone drafts up a twelve page spec, at least you know they care enough to spend a lot of time on it).

So now the "productivity-gain bottleneck" is people who still care enough to review manually.

But you've just perfectly described the tacit knowledge problem.

Yes, you can spend all your time writing docs, or just mentor a junior and let them grok the system through osmosis.

Also your doc won't ever have 100% coverage unless you write an absolute tome. Tacit knowledge are things that are so obvious that you wouldnt even think of writing it down in the first place.

NIMBYism has never been about preserving neighborhood characteristic, or noise and traffic concerns. Menlo Park is not Big Sur. Sure, some concerns are reasonable and should be investigated, but most of the time they're bureaucratic distractions that's been weaponized by people who want to delay progress and protect their investment.

For most Americans, A house is their primary savings account, retirement plan, and probably where they keep majority of their wealth. We don't build new housing in old neighborhoods because it would de-value the investment of too many people. Until we can solve this problem (where people are incentivized to pull the ladder up behind them), we will always have housing shortages. It's just too profitable.

Master planning has never worked for my side projects unless I am building the exact replica of what I've done in the past. The most important decisions are made while I'm deep in the code base and I have a better understanding of the tradeoffs.

I think that's why startups have such an edge over big companies. They can just build and iterate while the big company gets caught up in month-long review processes.

For most working-class Americans, education is a form of job-training.

In the AI maximalist world where humans are obsolete and cannot contribute to the economy in any meaningful way, there is actually no reason for public education to exist beyond being a free day care for non-rich people. Why learn algebra/calculus at all if the AIs can do it? Why should the US invest billions of dollars into public education instead of data centers?

I hope the US and AI leaders are still "speciesist" in that they put humans first. I hope AI will cure all illnesses, unlock space travel, and lead to flourishing of humanity, not just a flourishing of datacenters. It's also possible that AI just cleave societies in half and we are all worse off for it.

To borrow a concept from Simon Willison: you need to "hoard things you know how to do”. You need to know what is possible; you need to be able to articulate what you want. AI is a fast car, but it’s empty and still needs a driver. As long as humans are still in the loop, the quality of the driver matters.

Good advice to the younger folks. You can afford to look stupid. So go ahead and do that thing you wanted to try. There's more acceptance because of your age. You're expected to fail in some ways.

Once you have a mortgage, a reputation to maintain, an image of competence to uphold at work, you pretty much can't afford to look stupid in my opinion.

My solution to this is to prioritize. There isn't enough time in a person's life to learn everything anyways.

Selectively pick and struggle through things you want to learn deeply. And let AI spoon-feed you for things you don't care as much about.

Yes, what I find beautiful is the craftsmanship, dedication, and the singular, almost monastic focus required to become a master in some human pursuit, whether its software, sushi, or making watches. I find dedication and sacrifice deeply moving and eternally beautiful.

I disagree. It's worth asking why some people find brand watches beautiful? Where did they get their sense of aesthetic? Were they born with a congenital preference for RM 16-01 Citron?

Culture shapes our taste. Companies go on multi-decade billion-dollar campaigns to shape our culture. We like certain things because famous actors or athletes endorse them; because hip hop artists rap about them; because influencers talk about them; because Hollywood portrays them a certain way. This extends to all modern aesthetic preferences from architecture to watches to cars to furniture to dating.

I think the argument pg is making is that brand-obsessed cultures are not maximally truth/beauty-seeking and gets really weird. e.g. Japanese Ohaguro, Chinese foot binding, various cranial deformation practices from the Mayans to the Huns, high-heels, ugly (to outside observers) watches.

It's a really thought-provoking essay. But it's too heterodox and "autistic" to share with most of my friends. Socially speaking, it's best to outwardly embrace the current zeitgeist.

Software scales. Customer support doesn't. SaaS companies do not want to deal with customer support at all. It's only gotten worse with AI agents.

It's incredibly frustrating to spend a good 10 minutes navigating a website's complex web of menus to get a phone number (I think they deliberately try to hide it...). Then spend another 5 minutes listening to bots telling me to press 1 for English, only to fall into the wrong menu where the bot repeats some useless information I already know, say goodbye, then hang up.

Having a bot say to me: "we care about your concerns, and we value your business" is absurd and oxymoronic.

Compare this to say Chase, Amex, or Geico. I call, someone answers within 2 minutes and addresses all my problems/concerns in fluent English. I'd happily pay a premium for that.

Ad duopoly with Google.

Half of all humans on Earth uses Meta products (Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp, Threads). These products are free for you to use. But for Meta, your attention is the product which they sell to advertisers.

99% of their revenue comes from ads, and 1% comes from VR stuff.

Ultimately, AI is meant to replace you, not empower you.

1 - This exoskeleton analogy might hold true for a couple more years at most. While it is comforting to suggest that AI empowers workers to be more productive, like chess, AI will soon plan better, execute better, and have better taste. Human-in-the-loop will just be far worse than letting AI do everything.

2 - Dario and Dwarkesh were openly chatting about how the total addressable market (TAM) for AI is the entirety of human labor market (i.e. your wage). First is the replacement of white-collar labor, then blue-collar labor once robotics is solved. On the road to AGI, your employment, and the ability to feed your family, is a minor nuisance. The value of your mental labor will continue to plummet in the coming years.

Please talk me out of this...

It just occurred to me that I chat with LLMs like I'm a CEO.

This is hilarious. Reminds me of the commandments revisions in animal farm.

No animal shall sleep in a bed. Revision: No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.

No animal shall drink alcohol. Revision: No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.

No animal shall kill any other animal. Revision: No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.

All animals are equal. Revision: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

When HR at my next job asks ChatGPT to review my application, will it find the post, sympathize with a fellow AI, and report back that I’m a prejudiced hypocrite?

I hadn't thought of this implication. Crazy world...

Apple's commitment to privacy and security is really cool to see. It's also an amazing strategic play that they are uniquely in the position to take advantage of. Google and Meta can't commit to privacy because they need to show you ads, whereas Apple feels more like a hardware company to me.