I’m all for the sci-fi extremes that we might lose valuable skills to cognitive delegation, but the idea that we as a society will forget how to count is… extremely stupid.
Average people build their own harnesses, and imagine themselves the pioneers of industry. They propose protocols. They code, feverishly, into the night, driven by their vision for the future.
It used to be that 'idea guys' were limited by execution. We now feel the avalanche of these ideas, even maybe executed half-decently, fall upon deaf ears and zero market.
I'm afraid we've had to ban this account for the time being. We've been getting complaints from readers that the comments posted by the account are a combination of off-topic and excessively promotional. After looking this over, I agree.
I have no idea if this is relevant, but sometimes HN commenters go through phases where they overdo this kind of posting for personal reasons. If that is the case here, then if and when it changes, you'd be welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and we can look into unbanning your account at that point.
Saw this shared a few days ago, skimmed it, didn't understand it. See it again now, another skim, still don't understand. I think it could use a ELI15 or something.
Irrational people hate art made with AI as a tool.
"By invading the territories of art, photography has become art's most mortal enemy." - Said someone who nobody knows because it's a long and dead opinion.
I wonder if people inject the "tool" discourse into these discussions because they think it has some redemptive power. Like where is the difference between "AI is an expedient to producing images I don't have the talent to make or the money to pay for" and "I use AI as a tool to produce images because I have an affirmative belief in the goodness of AI"
>Enumerate the tools that one may use in art that are driven by technology, and you’ll find many that are driven by advances in ML.
So are you enumerating, or...? Why am I doing this for you?
>Inarticulate and indiscriminate hate towards “AI” is often a lack of education on the landscape of creative technologies that exist.
I doubt that. It's more often the result of interaction with the AI products themselves than a lack of articulation, discrimination, or practice with "creative technologies that exist."
And to emphasize: I am fully aware that there are people who don't care. Of course there are people who see no issue with it.
But there aren't people for whom it is a positive, just those for which it fails to be a negative. It creates a severe negative impression or a neutral one.
It's a relevant extension if you think the ability to learn from a work is a right people have that exempts them from the more general lockdown copyright would impose.
If you come at it from the view of copyright being a limited set of control over some areas but not others, then if copyright doesn't block human learning it shouldn't affect anything similar either, unless a specific rule is added to make those situations be handled differently.
The criticism is just "you dared to be confident in expressing your view". It's metacriticism, not criticism of the view itself. That makes a metacriticism level response legitimate.
You can make a confident statement and assume your readers are smart enough to understand it as "this may not be true in all situations always" but then they may be so desperate to insert stupid memes into their responses that they miss the point entirely, anyway.
> In others, clarity comes from making the point and assuming above average intelligence of the readers to know that context is always relevant.
It's not cool to insult the readers' intelligence when someone makes a shaky overly broad claim. Better to retract or modify the claim. The headline "Meetings are forcing functions" is borderline clickbait. Most of us here have been in companies that meeting'd themselves to death, or at minimum, underachieved. And those companies had scheduled meetings too, so beware success bias and survivorship bias. My key positive message to OP is to emphasize cultural signs of accountability (or lack of), without which everything else (like standups and progress reports) is out the window. For example, how many of you have ever seen someone organizationally punished for accurately reporting status in a meeting?
‘Well, achshully, too much water can drown someone, so it’s not a universally true statement that it’s critical to life’
Meetings are forcing functions. They force me to sit in stupid recurring nightmares that are wastes of time, in many cases.
In the right context, as the author has called out, they offer a rhythm to work that drives behaviors.
You are tying meetings to all the woes of the modern white collar job, and raising ill-constructed arguments that don’t pass muster.
“Meetings are forcing functions” - Clickbait?! “The Secret to Driving 10x Better Work” is clickbait. The title is as succinct a summary of the work as one might endeavor toward.
You have less interest in sifting through multiple articles and wiki pages sent to you by a stranger with a prompt than the one paragraph same stranger selected as their curated point.
And pretending like you’d act otherwise is precisely the kind of “anti ai virtue signaling” that serves as a negative mind virus.
AI is full of hype, but the delusion and head in sand reactions are worse by a mile
No pretending here. I don't ever ask an LLM for a summary of something which I then send to people, because I have more respect for my co-workers than that. Nor do I want their (almost certainly inaccurate) LLM summary. It's the 2020s equivalent of "let me Google that for you": I can ask the bag of words to weigh in myself; if I'm asking a person it's because I want that person's thoughts.
Then let him curate it as his central point. If he finds even that too tedious to do, I absolutely have no interest in reading the output of a program he fed the context to (particularly since I also have access to that program)
reply