Millions of people live about the way you have described, doing manual chores (perhaps out of necessity), and may be they are missing out on the joys of commenting on HN or may be I am indeed missing out on something when I eschew some degree of manual work (I have experienced this).

The point is not automating stuff, it is what do you do when you have automated the boring stuff that is matter - do you just scroll your feed ? Not to mention that some amount of boredom is necessary to make us value the interesting aspect of life.

OP is more correct than you realize. Your judgement of how life was is in the past, while what your life is in the now.

That, is also a thought terminating cliche. Sure we want to choose what we spend time on, however, we don't know what experiences will meaningfully contribute to our lives. It is only after we have gone through them that we realize which ones were significant. And these vary for everyone.

Our priors shape how we perceive the things around us.

It becomes a problem when sufficient number of people suffer from this, or those in important decision making places.

And it makes sense, as these LLMs become more capable in coding abilities - people will use them to develop their own abstractions to work on different HW. You cannot have it otherwise. If SaaS companies get threatened that their SW doesn't have a moat why do you expect Nividia's SW to have moat ? The computing algorithms are not even proprietary. It is only a matter of whether someones cares about it and is committed. This should be encouraging for new AI chip development companies.

The very progress that Nividia enables also has a negative feedback that threatens it.

Ironic that these large LLMs are eroding Nividia's moat. In the next paragraph he talks about Nvidia digging its own grave. I wonder if Nividia is aware of this and the frequent release cycle is a response to this development ?

This is a legitimate concern and the anxiety is understandable. I think that would make you a much better parent than many. Most often, parents use these as crutches, so as a parent one has to set ground rules (for ourselves) and enforce them.

No tablets/phone access for entertainment till 6-7 yrs - there is simply no reason for this. No unsupervised access till 10-12 yrs.

Use game console like the switch instead of mobile games. Curate stuff for them. Mostly be involved in how they use technology, discuss with them what it is and what effect it can have in a way they can relate too.

It is ironic that people got laid off due to capitol allocation for compute capacity and people will get laid off when there isn't much ROI and things crash.

My view wasn't whether generative language is here to stay or not but rather will it continue to be a significant thing or not.

This is what is happening. In the rush to adopt AI many are abandoning sane engineering principles/processes lest one gets left behind. Only to rediscover them on failure, hoping it is not catastrophic.

I had a realization that everybody using AI makes things worse off for everybody because a) more of inferior things and b) they are inferior since we would be using it in areas we are not good at i.e. experts in their fields collaborating to build something versus them independently building it with an AI. Even if one assumes the best AI, it is me who when is far out of his competence that my creation is of a lesser quality. These people can still use AI and collaborate to surpass previous frontiers, but the current zeitgeist is that one doesn't need other experts now.

This led to gaming out AI adoption scenario with claude from a game theoretic approach for both an organization and an individual perspective.

The response in part 1 was expected that AI adoption is a dominant strategy.

In part 2, I asked it to reconsider the implicit assumption that adoption is beneficial. It may be good to wait if the cost of adoption is greater than the probability of benefit of adoption. The interesting part is the portfolio approach for the individual, akin to investing.

In part 3, I asked it to break down the cost model for different domains and while it pulled out the numbers out of the hat, the reasoning for software/eda seems like a correct approach but we see the opposite happening today in the industry. What I wanted to ask is what others think these would be for their respective domains.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48226484

Points: 2

# Comments: 3

What we currently have is a simulacrum of thought - albeit a good one.

Any technology is useful only in the sense that it helps us with solving the problems we are dealing with in that time. When we face issues that a pseudo-thought is not useful in tackling or worse is one of the causes - this will recede in the background.

Beyond that, the implicit assumption in the question is that thinking is the highest form of activity that is useful to us.

I don't know how my thoughts arise but thinking happens when I engage with them. I think what we look for is meaning in our lives and thinking helps us generate/achieve one, whether real or illusory.

The technology of warfare evolved to better mechanisms, perhaps same with computing.

Technologies fade away when they are no longer useful, cost/benefit ratio is too high or something better comes along.

It is question of when.

>> So they'll go to the place where they do not need to ask anyone.

>> Anyway, space has none of those problems. Indeed, the problems are almost all technical.

This is pretty naive. What happens when one of the other sovereign nation destroys your space assets or holds them hostage. There is also no defense in space.

In an alternate reality Mr Brin could still be a billionaire owner of a company not based in CA and he would still have to face this issue or he may not.

But we are here and question is why they don't think it is ok to pay these taxes. It is interesting to see their actions. There is some double think here - they want to cut ties and move out, yet want to influence the state. A sibling comment rightly said - they could be heroes by spending money that would be just a drop in the bucket for them, but instead choose to do this - still spend that money. The old adage seems true, you didn't become rich by doing that.

Now I understand one may not be happy the way the state allocates the funds - but that is a different discussion.