thisoneisreal

I think this is actually a pretty valid response to what I posted (it's the reason I included the asterisk in the bit about levels of pattern matching), but I was sort of intentionally focusing on the manifestation of AI algorithms specifically as they affect the experience of browsing the modern web. And while I think your point gets us closer to the truth about the general capability of these systems, I'd still recommend Melanie Mitchell's book to appreciate some of the subtle limitations of even SOTA models.

I have the same experience, and I don't think it's just us.

I suspect what's going on is we're experiencing the long-term effects of AI recommendation algorithms getting plugged into everything. I'm not anti-AI. I think neural nets are incredibly powerful tools and I really like using them as an aide for my coding work. But they clearly do only a first or second level of pattern matching(asterisk), and I think that has a fundamental impact on their overall usefulness and desirability.

I can't explain this any better than Melanie Mitchell in her "AI for Thinking Humans," so I'd generally recommend that book to really understand the issues. But one way of thinking about it is that the AI keys in on patterns that are indeed there in its training data, but very often don't pick up on the same patterns as a human or treat patterns "not in the same way" as a person would. So you get the uncanny valley effect where the recommendations share some features of things you like and find interesting, but often miss the "soul" of the thing.

A good example of this is I recently watched the movie "X-Men" (2000). I then got a bunch of superhero movie recommendations. On the surface, this makes total sense. I watched a superhero movie, I get more superhero movies. But the reason I like that movie is it portrays racism/nationalism in a way that isn't totally stereotyped while still being PG-rated and easy to watch, without the seriousness of something like "American History X" (it was also a Patrick Stewart tribute). It's very unlikely that an AI can make that level of inference. I actually would enjoy watching more movies like that (as opposed to your point about wanting variety and something more exploratory), but what are the odds it's going to recommend some vague theme like that instead of "more superheroes"?

I also agree with your point that the underlying assumption we all want "more of the same" is a big thing that makes the modern internet feel more narrow. So you put those 2 together and it feels like we're being put into a narrow Skinner box that approximates aspects of things we like, but is really more of a confined environment designed to extract our time and attention while only fulfilling the shallowest, barest minimum of our wants and desires.

I don't claim to have all the answers, I still feel that way sometimes, but I've mostly escaped it. What really helped was a lot of Dr. K (Healthy Gamer) videos and introspection. I think I can sum up in a few bullet points what really worked for me, although it was actually a years-long process to go through.

1. Recognizing just how many of my goals and beliefs were "unnatural," in the sense that they never really originated from within me. I never in my whole life cared about money or status, but I had internalized the message that I needed to stand out (which I actually hate to do), have some glorious career, etc etc. It was completely useless pressure because I was running as hard as I could in the completely wrong direction. When I actually pay attention to what I enjoy, it's a very short list: laughing with my wife, tackling small but meaningful challenges (I'm a physically awkward guy but I've felt proud learning some basic home repair skills), reading books, beer, and conversation. That's basically it. So now I make time for those things and tune out the noise of what I'm supposed to want.

2. I treat my job as a source of money and a place to potentially form relationships. I also consider it an opportunity to exercise craft and quality, but I recognize that's not the main reason I'm there—it's not why I was hired and it's not (solely) why I took the job. Giving work a smaller (but still meaningful!) place in my life solved a lot of emotional problems.

3. Recognizing that "permanent happiness" is not a very realistic goal for human beings, and it's easy to make yourself miserable trying to be happy. I referenced this in another HN comment, but I really like the book "The Happiness Trap." It essentially helps you stop trying to run so hard from feeling negative emotions, and being ok with having negative experiences and feelings reduces so much stress.

4. The last one was "productivity," which manifested in many insidious ways. The first was turning all of my free time into a resource for self-improvement. I actually enjoyed this earlier in life when I was building a skill that I found interesting, but it became my goal to just get "better," and that was more useless pressure. I also tried to fit in an impossible amount of tasks, and to come up with systems to manage it all. Accepting my own limitations and the fact that there will always be more than it is possible to do really helped take another big category of stress away. "Four Thousand Weeks" is a great book.

All of this is not to say it's easy, or that I'm 100% fine all the time now. I still get depressed, overwhelmed and so on at times. But overall my quality of life is way up, I enjoy my days a lot of the time, I can function, I feel my life moving in a good direction. Mostly it was a journey of subtraction rather than addition. For a long time I didn't realize how many things I could just put down.

"The disease of philosophy is its itch to express itself in the forms, 'Some S is P' or 'All S is P.'"

I think it's actually appropriate here, and I'll try to articulate why. (Disclaimer: former history major here. I might be biased by my own interests.)

I'm reading "A Hacker's Mind" by Schneier and it makes a fundamental connection I've been trying to reason about for a long time. He looks at hacking through a very broad lens. He defines it essentially as the manipulation of a system using its rules to take actions that are allowed by the system but undermine its intent.

The key thing he says is that systems exist within and connected to broader systems. He gives the example of an ATM. Fundamentally it's a computer connected to a box of cash. You can hack it by manipulating computer rules. But it also exists within the broader monetary and legal systems, and while the computer's rules might allow you to execute the hack, the legal system will always treat that as an illegal action and prosecute you.

So what I'm basically saying is that as a matter of systems thinking, politics makes sense here on Hacker News. I think where people might object is that it can devolve into arguments about values and black-and-white thinking (arguably this essay does that, although I think the Burroughs quote about the bull in the ring approaches a systems theory aspect). Personally I enjoy thinking about this stuff though. Macro-level socioeconomic systems are the largest things we can think about aside from planetary-level concerns like geology and universe-scale stuff like cosmology. Their dynamics are very interesting and interact in many ways with the stuff we think of as more traditionally "hacking."

I (stereotypical nerd) was briefly friends with a large Samoan man that was built like a tank and did amateur MMA fighting. One night we were going out drinking with a group of us and he let slip that he was super into Starcraft. Me and all of my geeky friends lost it, couldn't believe it etc etc. I learned later he muttered to the one other athletic guy in the group, "I guess these guys don't really hang out around athletes very often." He wasn't being a jerk, he was right, we totally let our prejudices get the better of us. It's not at all uncommon for athletic people to be into nerd stuff.

I can absolutely direct anger towards someone who displays willful anti-social behavior, regardless of whether or not it is legal.

Apparently! I'm mostly a non-fiction reader but a few fictions I really like:

- The Friends of Eddie Coyle

- A River Runs Through It

- Stoner

- The Tartar Steppe

- Siddhartha

And a very cliche recommendation but will still make it, the first 3 Game of Thrones books. I also like the Dark Tower series.

This was eerie to read, you just named my 3 favorite works of fiction in the reverse order that I read them. All brilliant books.

This whole thing is an example of why the philosophy of this stuff is so fun. The trick here is buried in the word "is".

Just for kicks, I actually put your sentence into an LLM. The response was along the lines of, "Your query was incomplete and about medical knowledge, so I need to be careful. There is currently no cure..." and then goes on to do a decent job of summarizing existing treatment approaches for metastatic breast cancer.

What's so interesting about this is your notion of prediction here is divining the answer in reality, i.e. finding a cure for breast cancer. But its notion of prediction is determining the next logical sequence of words given its training set, so it produced a block of useful and context-relevant text, but not what you actually care about. This leads into the much broader question of what do we mean by "intelligence," which forms do these things have and not have, etc. etc. If nothing else it's all very fun to think about and debate.

I get the sentiment, but this is the reason we have airplanes, MRI machines, and computers that fit in our pockets. Advanced technology simply isn't possible in an economy of only ~100 person organizations. And I say this as someone with a deep sense of unease with modernity and all of the diseases of civilization. We somehow have managed to create systems that support literally billions of humans and allow many of them to have a quality of life undreamed of even a few hundred years ago. I dislike big orgs as much as they next guy but we need to understand why they exist if we want to criticize and reform them.

I'm not convinced by the doomsday scenarios either, but I think there's a keyword in your post: "sense." These things don't have "sense." They do nonsensical things all the time, often almost immediately when given a task. So I think the main risk is letting them run wild in this digital world we created to precede them. Too much important stuff is wired up to computers, and we're giving them incredible access to command those computers.

Lots of thinkers throughout history have pointed this out (David Hume and Seneca are the first 2 that spring to mind, but I'm sure there are hundreds more). Our mind doesn't work correctly when it's constantly focused, and as much as we think scrolling is not focusing, it is. The part of your brain that lights up and pays attention is active when you're zooming through content. There's nothing wrong with it, but like everything the dose makes the poison. You have to take breaks and balance it against other mental modes.

One formulation I like is the Kethledge and Erwin definition of solitude. They say that solitude is not so much physical isolation as it is a lack of input from other minds. What electronic media do (among many other effects) is flood your consciousness with the presence of other minds. Even if that mind is deranged, anti-social, or even pleasant, your own thought gets crowded out. I'm a huge reader, and I realize even books do this, although less oppressively than electronic media, which is why I think people imagine them as antidotes to this problem. But I think maybe the most important thing is to take a rest and don't let anyone else talk to you for a time, either in person or via media.

My favorite book about this is "The Happiness Trap," because it makes the simple point that we didn't evolve to be happy all of the time. It makes a really good case for learning to live with the range of emotions and suggests ways of creating a contented/good/whatever life with what you've got.

The person "watching" should be actively engaging and helping to build the "theory of the program" (in the Naur sense) through questions and conversations. If they're just sitting there silently they aren't doing the practice. (Also, I prefer to work with both developers having a keyboard and mouse. You still should have one person driving, but the other person can jump in and directly make changes instead of having to use the other person as a puppet.)

Alfred North Whitehead talks about the notion of "Importance" as fundamental to the human (and all other living things) way of being. Living creatures first and foremost select information that is important to them from the broader environment, and then make decisions and take actions. (Of course at a physiological level it's much more complicated than this, but it's a sound philosophical description of how living things work.) LLMs lack this entirely. They have no selective filter because they weren't designed to have one (interesting question if you could even do that) and they're not evolved beings with a survival imperative. When they enter a self-conscious or other-conscious mode like you're describing, they just emit text that looks like the thoughts of a self-or-other-conscious person. They can't direct a stream of attention or hold a concept in the forefront relative to other concepts or (to your main point) think about what matters to the other person/being because they don't experience "matters." All they can do is emulate the verbal output of beings that actually experience these things, and given that I don't find it surprising they get trapped in loops over trivial things.

It was created by a journalist and a cop, who both had long careers in Baltimore before working on the show. Not surprising how realistic it is. (Also a beautiful work of art beyond the realism.) If you find the show interesting, David Simon's book "Homicide" is a great read.

Check out mineral based sunscreens, I have sensitive skin and I find them infinitely more tolerable.

One thought I had is that you could use FPGAs to get hardware performance but maintain the ability to dynamically update. I don't know enough about hardware to consider trying such a thing but I'm curious if that could be made practical and economical somehow.

Can you explain more about how the front end aspect works? I'm not clear how the front end code could by TypeScript without a build step, unless I'm misreading.

Even before LLMs I used to joke with my traditional SE coworkers that "philosophy is very practical." On nearly every project we'd have to talk to stakeholders and ask questions like, "But when you say X, what do you mean?" Establishing definitions, relationships between concepts, etc etc turns out to be really important when you're encoding ideas into a block of silicon. (Yes I know other fields do versions of the same thing too.)

One thing I've never seen discussed on this topic (possible I just missed it, I only read popular accounts) is whether speaking multiple languages is a proxy for higher sociability / stronger social ties. That's a known dimension that improves health and aging and I wonder if just being able or interested in speaking with a broader swath of people is what helps more than the cognitive demands of switching.

You're ignoring the core analogy. The author's point is that someone (or something) can be verbose and articulate about a topic without having any real knowledge or experience of it. I can talk at length about war because I've seen Saving Private Ryan and read a hundred books on the topic, but do I really understand what it's like to be shot at, or to watch my friend die? No, I don't. My cousin's husband does, though, because he experienced both of those things.

The author is saying that that difference matters, that it isn't just a philosophical point but is actually a fundamental aspect of this new technology. I can spit out a bunch of words about war, and so can an LLM, but our understanding of war is limited to textual representations of it. Thomas Hobbes made this exact point centuries ago when he said, "Words are the wise man's counters but the money of fools."

As a complete aside, I don't agree that "Good Will Hunting" is a power fantasy. The whole point of the movie is that that power was illusory, and that it has nothing to do with what really matters in life.

It's a really fun philosophical exercise to ask what it means for them to be "wrong." My perspective is that they are fantastic at association and generalization (of language and symbols in particular), but whether they're identifying the associations you care about or generalizing to the level of abstraction you're aiming for is a complete crapshoot. If you aren't checking and correcting them, and discarding the misfires, you will end up with a very pretty Tower of Babel.

I think I've done a good job straddling the delivery/maintainability line thus far. In the near future I'm likely going to have to downshift into smaller, higher quality changes and refactors, but I've been careful to keep an eye on the output and make sure the functions are reasonably scoped, documented, and understandable. I don't anticipate any issues maintaining what I've produced so far, but it could easily get out of hand as more concepts get mixed in.

I hesitate to say this because I think the AI hype is generally overdone, but I was contemplating the other day how much I would recommend my employer spend on AI tooling for me based on my salary and it's got to be in the tens of thousands of dollars per year if I'm being honest. I'm a contractor. On my most recent client, I was able to learn a completely new domain and business, design a solution and build a full stack POC (a complicated one with technologies I had never used before) nearly singlehandedly in less than 2 months. That includes all of the onboarding time, getting access to the right people, repositories, databases etc. What made it possible was 1) the AI helped me understand technologies I had never used before, from a 30 year old Java stack to graph databases, 2) it could analyze DDLs and make correct inferences about what tables and columns meant in both business and technical terms, 3) it generated mostly-correct code in multiple languages to achieve what I needed it to do, and 4) it referenced libraries I didn't know existed to accomplish tasks I needed done. I could cycle between these activities and iterate FAR more rapidly than I ever have before. To me this is the thing the AI companies should really be emphasizing. I'm not convinced autonomous agents are really working out, but I'm 1000% sold on their ability to empower developers. And I say this as a pretty skeptical late adopter who only knows the most basic AI tooling.

I mean in the Big 5 personality model sense. Someone who is neurotic is sensitive, more prone to negative emotions including fear. Someone who is low in neuroticism is less fearful and sensitive on average. So for example you could put two people in the situation of being about to jump out of a plane and one would feel terrified for their life while the other would feel only mild apprehension.

EDIT: People are a complex blends of emotions and motivations, so you're certainly right that can be another explanation for the same observable behavior. I really liked the comment about adrenaline junkies too. My point was only that on average it's low-sensitivity people who engage in those sorts of activities. Scaredy cats like myself stay home and read a good book.

I agree it's counterintuitive, but it makes sense when I think about how, for example, it's the least neurotic people who do high-risk activities like base jumping or mountain climbing. Fear drives you away from threatening things, lack of fear allows you to move toward them more comfortably.

This is one of those classic "sounds dumb / doesn't play well on TV but is actually smarter than most of the other people babbling about it" things. Nassim Taleb has written for example about how maddening it is to watch world-class economists who are also just sort of awkward and a little nerdy go on TV and "lose" to blowhards who don't actually know what the hell they're talking about but appear confident and look good on camera. Thankfully in Rumsfeld's case I think as time has gone on it's become a pretty respected statement about risk even if people still occasionally find the phrasing a bit amusing.

I grew up solidly middle class, even went to a good private school. A couple of my friends got ripped off by an addict that ran in our social circle who had the same background. They couldn't find the person, but they were so angry that they looked up the parents' address and went to confront them, assuming they'd be like bad people or something or had failed to raise their kid right. Instead both parents were incredibly mild and apologetic, and basically said, "We don't know what happened to our child and where it all went wrong." My friends felt very ashamed, apologized and left them in peace. It's a really tragic thing, and it's not just a cliche that it can happen to anyone.