Also:

pg's "cliff notes"

https://paulgraham.com/bossnotes.html

And a standout comment from the original submission

> I've heard some Amazon employees say something similar (but maybe not as enthusiastically) about Amazon. One person described their structure to me as "like terrorist cells" [...]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=142210

The parent comment is an interesting read as well

> It was the wild west. We had different groups competing for the same government contracts. Managers and hackers alike got whopping bonuses for beating out other groups and they got to decide which contracts they wanted to bag. Entire groups were fired if they didn't bring in revenue. Fist fights, rancor and IP theft between teams were commonplace. But with all that they created some truly mind expanding tech for their time. They owned every angle of a highly lucrative market and showed no signs of slowing down... Until they got bought.

These two elements (extend/replace) are not mutually opposed according to McLuhan's tetrad.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48337452

Points: 10

# Comments: 2

Being conscious of what type of memory you're working in (or need to engage) may be the trick to building rhythm or flow, or whatever. Depending on the case the LLM may not even be necessary. Use something else.

The trap could be in trying to depend on and work with a model the same way we would work by ourselves, as the author describes, letting every type of memory unconsciously operate.

I appreciate the clarification.

Not necessarily. The take is reasonable but I'm curious about who could be bold enough to actually talk about or disclose their use of LLMs during these events.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48310490

Points: 4

# Comments: 3

Interpret this article as an attempt at criticizing or curtailing this effect instead.

Where would you start.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48135689

Points: 8

# Comments: 7

Turning into what from where is the interesting part.

But...I like MDV.

No one until you it seems.

> Cable TV is an example of something that no one is objecting to.

@tencentshill's reference to cable TV originates from the question of whether Hacker News operates via algorithm and would be subject to the sweeping regulation proposed by @conception. The answer is yes.

If I wanted to be pedantic I'd try to argue that cable TV operates according to its own kind of algorithm. And I almost did, so you got me there at least. But there's enough factors that contribute to television programming that it's debatable how far it is from using one (or a recommender system, rather) and whether under different circumstances the EU's issue with "endless scroll" and "autoplay" would be aimed at TV.

Of course the main difference is that television in Europe is probably regulated different than the internet.

I'm not objecting to the internet being regulated like television. For the record, I don't hold one to the same standard of utility as the other. I'm speculating on what would happen if the internet were to be regulated like television according to the combined scenarios advanced by @conception and @tencentshill. Do you follow?