corethree

IF people hated him he would've been dropped. Microsoft and everybody else only moved forward because they knew they wouldn't get public backlash. Seems everyone fails to remember their own mob mentality. People here on HN were practically worshipping the guy.

Statistically most people commenting here right now were NOT supporting his firing and now you've all flipped and are saying stuff like: "yeah he should've been fired." Seriously?

I don't blame the governance. They tried their best. It's the public that screwed up. (Very likely to be YOU, dear reader)

Without public support the leadership literally only had enemies at every angle and they have nowhere to turn. Imagine what that must have felt like for those members of the board. Powerful corporations threatening aspects of their livelihoods (of course this happened, you can't force a leader to voluntarily step down without some form of a serious threat) and the entire world hating on them for doing such a "stupid" move as everyone thought of it at the time.

I'm ashamed at humanity. I look at this thread and I'm seriously thinking, what in the fuck? It's like everyone forgot what they were doing. And they still twist it to blame them as if they weren't "powerful" enough to stop it. Are you kidding?

ABCs are attached to both worlds, and thus are likely to feel pride and shame for both countries. Sometimes they will feel more loyalty towards one world over the other and sometimes the loyalties cancel out where you're left with a rare person who can look at the situation completely impartially.

See here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/opinion/ai-chatgpt-consci...

So we create a curve and estimate it. We will never know the true equation. Additionally the curve has hundreds of dimensions and is essentially something that can't be visualized or understood cohesively. We have this neural network that represents the curve but the neural network is a black box.

Put it this way, it's extremely challenging and not simple at all to walk and balance on a wire. Tight rope walking is not simple at all because very few people can do it.

But tightrope walking is different from something like Quantum physics. I may not be able to tightrope walk but I can understand the concept in it's entirety. For Quantum Physics, many people will never truly understand it.

What I'm saying is this, ML is tightrope walking. Challenging, not simple, but NOT quantum physics. It only seems like quantum physics.

Did you read his book Godel Escher Bach? It's a good book. CS people love it as it's all about recursion and puzzles.

The whole thing is just curve fitting. Literally finding some best fit curve across a series of points. This is very very easy for any software engineer to understand. I literally lost interest when I found out that the entire field was just all about messing with the data and the curve to try to get things to fit.

Literally it's just about eyeballing the data and qualitatively picking and training the thing that looks like it's the best fit. But because the data is N-dimensional and in the millions it's impossible to "eye-ball" it with your physical eyes, you have to come up with other techniques equivalent to "eye-balling" it.

Douglas Hofstadter had this whole theory of consciousness and when he found out that an LLM was a simple feed forward network with no feedback loops he went into a crisis. Basically his whole theory in GEB was wrong, according to him.

This stuff is NOT quantum physics. It's startling how simple it is and that's one of the big mysteries about it.

We only understand and build these things at a high level. At the very low level we don't actually understand what's going on. As I stated earlier we understand ML the same way a person understand data from an "eye-ball" perspective so it's impossible to even justify what exactly specifically went on with chatGPT when he answered a specific question correctly.

You'd do well to study your own words as well. The way you're conveying it to him is patronizing. You're acting superior as if you're better. When you talk to people in this tone they tend not to like it and they won't listen to you. Your ultimate goal is not achieved with the way you said it either. In fact what you said was more directed, more personal. He's making a blanket statement while you're creating direct and personal conflict.

You need to take a good long look at yourself and see if whether you should be talking to people as if they're children and you're the all knowing parent. And you should and will because telling other people to study their own writing without studying you're own opens you up to hypocrisy. Because of this... your next response will most likely indicate that you will read your own venom, that's just how humans work/think.

Overall though, I think there's no point in responding like this to anyone or being patronizing, people may not agree with his opinion and they may state their disagreement just as passionately and I'm happy to read that. I don't enjoy reading these comments where someone is acting like a baby sitter just for that superiority complex.

1. Incapable of building infrastructure, can't build the CA hsr while China built an entire network across the country.

2. Can't raise the population out of poverty. You see homeless people and drug addicts everywhere.

3. Unemployment going up, Inflation is going up.

4. Wealth ienquality is rising. The Housing is becoming more and more unaffordable for most Americans.

I mean this is "delivering" too. As if 4 random economic problems a country is facing is indicative of total collapse.

Don't worry. They will catch on... making and copying not just components but the entire framework. It really depends on how popular it gets.

Also you added the word "overweight". I never said I was overweight. You calling me fat? I'm Offended.

Look up the gender equality paradox in Nordic countries. Nordic countries are the most egalitarian countries in the world that offer the best equal opportunities for men and women. The initial conclusions were that as Nordic countries made opportunities for either gender more equal the differences in choice for careers between genders became more pronounced.

There's various cooked interpretations of the result from agenda based groups but those are the initial results. This person illustrates the whole study the best:

https://youtu.be/_iudkPi4_sY?si=DPtr46-vw94sa70v

It's hard to draw a definitive conclusion from the study due to all the controversy and various parties cooking the numbers for their own agenda but take from it what you will, but the initial conclusion was that most of this is biological.

Women and men being equal is intrinsically logical. It is an axiom that is true without proof.

To say the opposite in public would get you to rightly lose your job and get ridiculed as you are obviously lying and furthering your agenda of male oppression.

Let us continue this discourse so others can see the absurdity of your logic.

Take a look at this from over a decade ago: https://www.vice.com/en/article/5gynqq/what-v11n11

Part of the article laments how the shape of cars have turned into "cough drops" and "globular tears". Clever but I can also write a edgy article about how idiots in the past designed cars as if they were hideous boxes and the concept of a curve was too advanced for their square minds to comprehend.

Every so often on hacker news you get some article like this that tries to introduce a "new concept" that they didn't know has already existed for the longest time or you get some other person writing a blog post about some programming analogy how programming is like "theory building". I just roll my eyes. I really wonder why you only see programmers who like to think of themselves as "highly intelligent" and calling what they're doing "theory building" and why civil engineers or electrical engineers don't supply this endless vault of "analogy blog posts" for HN readers to self pleasure themselves to.

This is 100% accounting for program + debugging.

The anecdotal reason for this is because the human brain finds it easier to debug golang bugs then it does to write and completely understand all the semantics of rust. This is the same thing as why python is easier then C++ EVEN though counter-intuitively C++ has strict type checking and python doesn't.

Rust in my mind is ultimately better than C++ but it unfortunately, like C++, it retains a level a complexity past a certain reasonable level that prevents it from hitting ubiquity. Thus it's not the answer. There will be in the future some language out there that will be just as flexible/safe and less complex.

There's a lot of domain specific stuff too that a straight up math major won't understand.

So would most people.

Many parents would kill other people to save their own children too.

The correct terminology is not self defense. It's slaughter for self gain. That's just a truth you're not willing to face. I accept the reality of the dark side of human nature.

Tell him the first step is to build a working game with 2% of all the features he wants.

Then you add features one by one. That helps with the accomplishment aspect. You guys may never reach 100%, but this is the most likely way to get there.

Most people would kill to save their own lives.

Still would do it. And so would most ppl.

Nobody is clear about the right move on how to deal with this problem. There's no sure fire conclusion.