I would seriously consider if you've developed an imaginary caricature in your mind that you apply to people you don't know. Further, I would consider if any living person actually lives up to it.
On the one hand, I admire (at some level) you sticking to your guns here, willing to take on all comers. On the other, though, I don't entirely understand the inference that you're drawing from the piece; what, exactly, is getting commoditized?
What he prides himself in (in this context) is craft, which LLM use probably can enable, but definitely isn't commoditized by the kind of vibe coding that Garry Tan is doing.
> More generally, Luria completely ignores a key psychological dynamic that's in play as he tries to quiz these villagers: they're going to be suspicious of why he's even doing all this in the first place. What is he up to? And of course he was up to something: he was a agent of a horribly oppressive government that was trying to totally change the villagers' lives.
This doesn't explain the difference between the collective farm workers, who were actually forced by the government to change their lives, and the villagers who were not forced to change their lives. Why wouldn't the farm workers be even more suspicious, having already been victimized?
> the villagers who were not forced to change their lives
They were--they just hadn't been yet when Luria ran his experiments.
> Why wouldn't the farm workers be even more suspicious, having already been victimized?
They might have been, but they also knew from experience that "do whatever this party apparatchik asks you to do, no matter how pointless it seems" was a better strategy for staying alive.
Note that I am not arguing that the cognitive differences Luria observed were not real.
> They might have been, but they also knew from experience that "do whatever this party apparatchik asks you to do, no matter how pointless it seems" was a better strategy for staying alive.
Why didn't the villagers come to the same conclusion, especially since you're suggesting that the villagers were fearful of this person?
> Note that I am not arguing that the cognitive differences Luria observed were not real.
There's a difference between "I think this person might be up to something, but I don't know what" and " I know exactly what they're up to and it's in my best interest to avoid becoming an obstacle". Not all fear is the same.
> Why didn't the villagers come to the same conclusion
Because they hadn't had the same experience--yet.
> you're suggesting that the villagers were fearful of this person
Not fearful, suspicious.
> that's the crucial question!
You don't think it's possible for both things to be true? That literacy caused significant cognitive changes, and that the psychological dynamic I described was in play? I don't see how those two things are mutually exclusive.
It's possible that the villagers were suspicious of Luria. It's also possible that the collective farm workers were suspicious of Luria. Don't you think it's possible for both of those to be true?
The question is, what explained the difference in behavior of the two groups with regard to Luria's questions? I don't see how suspicion is a plausible explanation for the difference. The villagers were clearly bold enough to talk to Luria, instead of avoiding him completely. They were also bold enough to refuse to entertain Luria's scenario. That could be considered a form of resistance to the Soviets, no? Given that the villagers were so bold, why would they even be afraid of entertaining the scenario in the first place? Are you claiming that they knew the answer to the question yet refused to say it? If so, why? If not, then the issue seems to be a failure of imagination rather than a matter of suspicion.
> It's possible that the villagers were suspicious of Luria. It's also possible that the collective farm workers were suspicious of Luria. Don't you think it's possible for both of those to be true?
Sure. But that doesn't mean that "suspicion" always has to lead to the same behavior. "Suspicion" doesn't exist in a vacuum. You have to look at all the factors involved.
> The question is, what explained the difference in behavior of the two groups with regard to Luria's questions?
And the answer is, there were multiple factors involved, and trying to pin it down to just one is a fool's errand.
> Are you claiming that they knew the answer to the question yet refused to say it?
No, I'm saying that Luria's claim that the only reason they gave the response to the question was a cognitive difference between them and the collective farm workers who had been taught to read, is way too simplistic. And more generally, that Luria only looking at that one aspect of the situation--the possible cognitive effects of illiterate vs. literate--and ignoring all other salient differences between the two groups--like the fact that the villagers hadn't yet been forced into collective farm work by the Soviet government, while the farm workers had--is way too simplistic.
> I recommend reading up on his 80/90's antics. All he cared about was money
Incorrect. Read the David Pogue Apple book. For example, after the iMac was released, the Apple board of directors offered Jobs a million shares and six million options if he switched from interim to permanent CEO. Jobs continued to refuse. “This is not about money. I have more money than I’ve ever wanted in my life.”
Most of Steve's wealth came from Pixar, which he ultimately sold to Disney, rather than from Apple.
> I feel bad for the guy and all the Apple users constantly sharing stories of being mistreated and abused. Stop giving these companies your money and consent.
Here's a challenge: walk into a store and attempt to buy a smartphone that is not iPhone or Android.
This is the situation that consumers face. Some alternatives exist, but most consumers are completely unaware of them, because the alternatives have no advertising budget or retail presence.
I think it's quite similar to the political duopoly. Third parties exist, but they have no advertising budget, and moreover, in a Catch-22 situation, they get little or no news coverage, precisely because they have no advertising budget, and thus the news media considers them "not viable." That's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Actually the same situation exists in tech: Apple and Google get huge amounts of free news coverage in addition to their paid advertising. The media appears to feel no obligation to help people escape from duopolies; guess who pays for their advertising...
Yes, the phone market is bad. But, you know you don't have to do everything in a phone, right?
Want to take pictures? Use a camera. If it somehow auto updates your photos are still on an SD card.
I get convenience has led everyone to expect their phone to do everything for them, but it's not working. When you're in a pinch you will go to a 7-Eleven and grab food, but everyone would agree that buying everything there instead of real groceries is a terrible strategy. Just because something is convenient doesn't mean it's good.
> I get convenience has led everyone to expect their phone to do everything for them, but it's not working.
It's mostly working, though. For every story of someone experencing a severe problem, there are millions of non-stories of people not experiencing the problem.
Inconveniencing yourself every day just to avoid the rare situation is not necessarily a great life strategy. Furthermore, most consumers are not as aware of these problem cases as we are. They don't expect the worst until it's too late.
Admittedly, failing to back up is just dumb, and everyone should know that by now. On the other hand, nobody should be expecting that a software update will kill their passcode.
> Perhaps the most serious mistake that the AI industry made after creating a technology that will transversally disrupt the entire white-collar workforce before ensuring a safe transition
This was not an oversight. To the contrary, it was the goal. Technological feudalism, with people like Altman and Musk becoming the Lords of the world.
> Most layoffs are not caused by AI, but it’s the perfect excuse to do something that’s otherwise socially reprehensible.
This illustrates my previous point. What they're doing is not a mistake.
> For what it’s worth, the New Yorker piece I’m referring to, which Altman also referred to in his blog post, made me see him more as a flawed human rather than a sociopathic strategist. My sympathy for him will probably never be very high, but it grew after reading it.
Yes. I keep mine on my lap. My regimen is that I wake up at 3am and lie on the couch for several hours with coffee and write code (or these days, ask "someone else" to). It is highly productive and enjoyable and breaks all the rules and no I do not have RSI. Long ago I started sandpapering the edges because yeah otherwise it hurts my wrists.
It's a good move. I have a case on my MBP that helps with this because it means the edges are plastic for me, and not quite so sharp.
If you want to break more rules, you might consider chickenwing-ing your arms a bit. Deviate from the homerow and learn to feel your way around at other angles. Then you can hold the laptop closer to you without putting your wrists at a weird angle (though you may have to use a non-thumb finger for spacebar, as I do).
As I type this, my laptop is partly on my belly and partly on my chest, and my wrists are so far out to the sides that they completely miss the front edge of the laptop altogether. The angle is pretty favorable, too: my palms rest on the laptop on either side of the trackpad, and my wrists rest over the left and right sides of the bottom case but have little to no pressure on them.
No RSI here, either. Just make sure you're loose and comfortable and not forcing anything! That seems to help a lot.
He's co-founder and CTO of his own company, so I think he's doing fine in his field.
reply