> so I'm going to choose to take that personally and point out that using the word AI as some roundabout way to sell the labor of people that look like me to foreign governments is fucked up, you're an unethical monster, and that if you continue to try { thisBullshit(); } you are going to catch (theseHands)
And (theseFeets) in (yourNutz).
> I'm going to ask ChatGPT how to prepare a garotte and then I am going to strangle you with it, and you will simply have to pray that I roll the 10% chance that it freaks out and tells me that a garotte should consist entirely of paper mache and malice.
Sadly it’s got a much greater than 10% chance of getting a garotte wrong.
A garotte is a device or weapon used for strangulation. It typically consists of a cord or wire, sometimes with handles at each end to provide better grip and leverage. The garotte is used by wrapping it around a person's neck and tightening it, cutting off the air supply and causing asphyxiation. Historically, garottes have been used for execution and assassination due to their silent and deadly nature. In modern contexts, they are often associated with covert or criminal activities.
Things would be substantially more productive if boardroom meetings allowed more definitive responses than "We'll circle back to that later". This is the other extreme.
As opposed to the rampant _passive aggression_ that permeates every discussion and meeting of every workplace.
This entire comments section is exemplary of the industry at large. We're doing fucking _engineering work_ "professionally" and the bitching is 50:1 on his tone versus his actual ideas.
The entire professional class has been brought to its knees by a culture that demands we tiptoe around everyone's insecurities.
We know organic interest when we see it, so I merged all the comments into this one (the first) and re-upped it. Meta explanations here if it's the kind of thing you like:
IMO this should be flagged. This is outrage porn, and comments overwhelmingly fall into two camps: ones discussing the author and writing style, completely devoid of intellectual curiosity; and ones venting their own pent up energy based on the title/topic. Very few are interested in the actual points of the article, because it’s written in a way that maximally discourages civil discussion.
I know occasionally a “discuss the title” thread is allowed, but this one is almost strictly worse than just the title without the link, since we don’t get useless comments on the author in the latter case.
Oh, and I say this as someone who vaguely agree with the sentiment.
Seven | eight or more prior submissions have been flagged. They've been vouched for, flagged again, marked dead, and resubmitted .. by many different unaligned not bot people.
As dang noted above the HN community wants to thrash this out .. some want it deader than a parrot, others want to comment that much of the AI hype appears to have no clothes and this opinion range comes from 10 year old active accounts (and more recent ones).
You're right, but this seems to be a rare boundary condition where some users think it's fun/interesting and others are triggered by it and the two groups are the same order of magnitude.
In such cases the story is going to keep showing up no matter what we do. If we don't yield after 14 submissions we're destined to yield after 140! I'd rather yield after 14. It's just one thread, and easy enough to move on from.
Pitiful as I am, I need to ask you to stop breaking HN's guidelines. Your account has been doing this repeatedly, and in fact is way over the line at which we ban people.
I'm not banning you at the moment because it wouldn't feel sporting to do so in response to a personal remark. But if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules going forward, that would be good.
I skipped over the blog post and thread several times here, as the shortened title didn't really sound appealing.
It's only after I read it via twitter that I dug back in to see the thread. I agree that this might be seen as "outrage porn"... but who really doesn't love a good rant? It's good to discharge the thundercloud of disquiet through at least one good thread, such as this one.
As for me, and my perspective, I took the Stanford AI course back when it showed up here, and others... just to learn the mechanics of it, and it's fascinating. The hype cycle on this though, is off the charts.
I came to see if there were any others who wanted to get actual legislation to passed to help set up "Thought Leader Jail". ;-)
> I myself have formal training as a data scientist, going so far as to dominate a competitive machine learning event at one of Australia's top universities and writing a Master's thesis where I wrote all my own libraries from scratch. I'm not God's gift to the field, but I am clearly better than most of my competition - that is, practitioners who haven't put in the reps to build their own C libraries in a cave with scraps, but can read textbooks and use libraries written by elite institutions.
I really didn't have any illusions on the article after reading this - apparently the author believes that anyone who hasn't written a C library is below him.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting but it seems like he considers himself a part of the "practitioners who haven't put in the reps to build their own C libraries in a cave with scraps, but can read textbooks and use libraries written by elite institutions" not above them
Except for that in the sentence right before that he says that he did write his own C libraries from scratch, which I think means that the only reasonable interpretation of the "practitioners..." clause is that those are the people people that he describes as his "competition" who he is "clearly better than".
I'd really like to read it that way, but I'm afraid he actually did come across that arrogant.
I'm not seeing where he says he wrote libraries in C in a cave with scraps. That sounds like a few steps beyond writing libraries from scratch (non-specified language). One's competition is their equals, no? It's not a competition otherwise.
Still not seeing where he said he himself wrote C in a cave with scraps. Not suggesting he's humble, but I still think he sees himself as one of them (he doesn't say he's "better than everyone [at that level]")
“I'm not God's gift to the field, but I am clearly better than most of my competition - that is, practitioners like myself who haven't put in the reps to build their own C libraries in a cave with scraps, but can read textbooks and use libraries written by elite institutions.“
It’s quite poorly written, but they note they’re clearly better than most of their competition.
> they note they’re clearly better than most of their competition.
Yup, I've noted that three times. Are we still claiming he wrote libraries in C in a cave with scraps? Or just moving on?
Poorly written? Maybe. Poorly read? Equally likely. Maybe we should just ask the guy, he'll know.
Did the downvoter see me as their "competition"? "Clearly better"? Both? I don't have enough karma yet to respond in kind, so they're right about something at least.
The section starts with him bragging about having written libraries from scratch. Given that, I really don't understand how you can arrive at them considering themselves one of the people who hasn't written libraries.
> I really don't understand how you can arrive at them considering themselves one of the people who hasn't written libraries.
There seems to be a comprehension issue on one side or the other. Can someone point me to where he says his competition has never written a single library? I only see that he says they haven't written a library "in C in a cave with scraps". Where does he say he's written libraries in C? I don't see that either. Maybe the words "scraps" and "scratch" are too close together? If a subset of readers are inclined to dismiss him out of hand for this perceived slight, nothing I write will convince them otherwise, but that doesn't make their uncharitable interpretation of his words the correct one.
Yes, there is a comprehension issue here. Everyone else understood this as a discussion on whether the author is being arrogant and dismissive in this section. You seem to be looking for a discussion on whether anyone really writes C libraries in a cave with scraps.
Nobody here but you is taking the "cave" and "scraps" literally. It'd be total nonsense if taken literally. Like, what would it even mean? It's obviously the author trying to make their writing punchy. You should not take it any more seriously than their threats to snap people's necks for talking about AI.
If you want to ignore than actual discussion and steer it toward a discussion of an interpretation of the text that's so literal that the text doesn't even make sense, you should probably be very explicit about it.
No one's discussing whether he's arrogant or not, they've all made up their minds. I gave an alternate, more charitable interpretation of his words, that would offer an otherwise offended reader a way to reframe the blog, and not dismiss it out-of-hand if they took his words as a slight. I believe this interpretation.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
It's just an Iron Man(2008) movie reference. (Though it was the Big Bad saying that a problem wasn't that hard if Our Hero didn't need any resources - which doesn't exactly fit what the author seems to be saying here - I read it mostly as lightening the mood a bit regardless.)
Please note that Ludic is partly writing for himself to vent about the massive disappointment it is working in tech after all he's been through and partly as a rallying cry for others who can relate to being primarily surrounded by well-spoken incompentents.
If you subdue the urge to write him off based on his emotionally expressive writing, you'll find a lot of poignant observations you wouldn't get from more civilized venues (e.g. HN, famous tech influencers, thinkers, and execs, etc.).
Ludic's blog is a one-man 4chan board, minus the racism, sexism, and so on.
This is just what happens, though. We were promised computer proliferation, and got locked-down squares with (barely) free internet access and little else to get excited for besides new ways to serve API requests. The future of programming isn't happening locally. Crypto, AI, shitty short-form entertainment, all of it is dripping from the spigot of an endless content pipeline. Of course people aren't changing the world on their cell-phone, all it's designed to do is sign up for email mailing lists and watch YouTube ads.
So I really don't actually know what the OP wants to do, besides brutalize idiots searching for a golden calf to worship. AI will progress regardless of how you gatekeep the public from percieving it, and manipulative thought-leaders will continue to schiester idiots in hopes of turning a quick buck. These cycles will operate independently of one-another, and those overeager idiots will move onto the next fad like Metaverse agriculture or whatever the fuck.
> by 2021 I had realized ... it was also largely fraudulent. Most of the leaders that I was working with clearly had not gotten as far as reading about it for thirty minutes ... Most of the market was simply grifters and incompetents (sometimes both!) leveraging the hype to inflate their headcount so they could get promoted, or be seen as thought leaders.
This was true of web tech in the 2000s, social media and mobile apps in the 2010s, crypto, now AI...
There's substance behind most of these topics, they're intellectually interesting, useful to people etc., but they tend to be largely grift, hype, office politics, narcissists tryina narcissist.
Tech as an industry is addicted to hype bubbles, and addiction in people and in large groups of people fosters bad decision making, skewed priorities, and over the long haul does great harm.
I feel like a simpler explanation is that the money involved attracts lots of shallow people trying to make a buck, who do not care about the substance or technology.
Author here. Someone sent me this comment this morning (along with a note saying: "I am not afraid of you") and it absolutely sent me. Probably because he knows I am of exactly average height and exactly average build, and I quit Muay Thai after one day of getting conditioned against knees-to-the-stomach.
But if you don't tell anyone, I won't tell anyone.
Fortunately, it was cheap to get a tone modulation, and the results literally made me smile .. I think this is now going to be my new thing to do with articles, since its kind of hilarious to get the human emotions altered while leaving the content relatively intact.
(My prompt: "okay, do it again, but this time change the tone to be cheerful and encouraging and not so flat.")
Ludicity: Embracing AI Innovations with Caution and Care
Published on June 19, 2024
The recent advancements in AI, particularly with developments like GPT-4, are undeniably reshaping our world. These innovations have the potential to eliminate mundane tasks, revolutionize industries, and even pose existential questions about our future.
As someone who has formal training as a data scientist, having excelled in a competitive machine learning event at one of Australia's top universities and written a Master's thesis with custom libraries in MATLAB, I have a unique perspective. I may not be the best, but I am certainly experienced and knowledgeable. So, it's with a mix of concern and optimism that I urge caution in our enthusiasm for rolling out AI everywhere.
Balancing Enthusiasm with Reality
I began my journey as a data scientist in 2019, and by 2021, I realized that while the field is vast and promising, it's also filled with misconceptions and overhype. Many leaders in the industry seemed to push AI initiatives without fully understanding them. The market saw a surge of companies jumping on the AI bandwagon, often without clear use cases, driven by hype rather than genuine need.
Despite the financial rewards, I transitioned to data and software engineering. Unlike those who chase trends for short-term gains, professionals like us value job stability, meaningful relationships, and genuine contributions to our field. The transient nature of hype-driven careers contrasts sharply with the steady, rewarding path of continuous learning and improvement.
Practical Advice for AI Implementation
Instead of blindly adopting AI, focus on the fundamentals. Many companies struggle with basic applications, yet they aim to implement complex AI systems. It's essential to ensure that your organization has the necessary infrastructure, skills, and culture before diving into advanced technologies.
For example, many businesses haven't mastered basic IT operations like regular database backups. Improving these fundamental practices will better position your company to leverage AI effectively when it's truly needed. Emphasize collaboration, clear communication, and mutual respect in problem-solving. This approach will yield more reliable and sustainable results than any rushed AI implementation.
The Future of AI: Opportunities and Challenges
Generative AI, like ChatGPT, has shown remarkable potential, but it's important to distinguish between practical applications and unrealistic expectations. AI can indeed revolutionize industries, but only if used thoughtfully and strategically.
If your company has a clear, well-defined use case for AI, by all means, pursue it. However, for many businesses, the priority should be on improving existing operations and culture. AI will naturally integrate into your processes as it becomes relevant and beneficial. Remember, technology should serve to enhance your capabilities, not distract from core objectives.
Encouraging Thoughtful AI Adoption
Let's approach AI with both enthusiasm and caution. Recognize the incredible potential while also being aware of the limitations and challenges. Embrace AI where it makes sense, but always prioritize the fundamentals of good business practice.
In conclusion, the journey with AI is exciting and full of possibilities. By focusing on solid foundations, continuous learning, and thoughtful implementation, we can harness the power of AI to create a brighter future. Let's work together to make sure our advancements are meaningful, sustainable, and truly beneficial.
If you're interviewing for job at a company you're not familiar with, what are some good heuristics (and/or questions to ask) to politely get a sense of whether it's run by buzzword bingo enthusiasts?
If its tech and they want a 30-45 minute interview with live coding on something like hackerrank - especially if whatever brain teaser they've chosen has absolutely nothing to do with the field they operate in - I'd put the chances around 80%.
Easy. Is the interview process a dehumanizing process, or is it not a process at all and you are treated as a potential friend and colleague? Are they trying to sell you on the team and project or are they merely hazing their applicants? That will tell you more than any heuristic about the culture of working at this company.
The jump to AI capabilities from data illiterate leadership is of such a pattern...
It reminds me of every past generation of focusing on the technology, not the underlying hard work + literacy needed to make it real.
Decades ago I saw this - I worked at a hardware company that tried to suddenly be a software company. Not at all internalizing - at every level - what software actually takes to build well. That leading, managing, executing software can't just be done by applying your institutional hardware knowledge to a different craft. It will at best be a half effort as the software craftspeople find themselves attracted to the places that truly understand and respect their craft.
There's a similar thing happening with data literacy where the non data literate hire the data literate, but don't actually internalize those practices or learn from them. They want to continue operating like the always have, but just "plug in AI" (or whatever new thing) without changing fundamentally how they do anything
People want to have AI, but those company's leaders struggle with basic understanding of statistical significance, basic fundamentals of experimentation, and thus essentially destroy any culture needed to build the AI-thing.
Do they struggle with the basics, or do they just not care?
I'm in a similar situation with my own 'C-suite' and it's impossible to try and make them understand, they just don't care. I can't make them care. It's a clash of cultures, I guess.
TL;DR: Yes, and I think that's why some of these comments are so hostile to OP.
> it's impossible to try and make them understand, they just don't care. I can't make them care. It's a clash of cultures, I guess.
That seems to be what OP's cathartic humor is about. It's also (probably) a deliberate provocation since that sub-culture doesn't deal well with this sort of humor.
If that's the case, you can see it working in this thread. Some of the commenters with the clearest C-suite aspirations are reacting with unironic vitriol as if the post is about them personally.
I think most of those comments already got flagged, but some seemed genuine in accusing OP of being a dangerously ill menace to society, e.g. "...Is OP threatening us?"
In a sense, OP is threatening them, but not with literal violence. He's making fun of their aspirations, and he's doing so with some pretty vicious humor.
I think it's a bit reductive to flatten the conversation so much. While I don't have as much of an extreme reaction as the people you talk about, the post left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. Not because I'm one of "those people" - I agree with the core of the post, and appreciate that the person writing it has actual experience in the field.
It's that the whole conversation around machine learning has become "tainted" - mention AI, and the average person will envision that exact type of an evil MBA this post is rallying against. And I don't want to be associated with them, even implicitly.
I shouldn't feel ashamed for taking some interest and studying machine learning. I shouldn't feel ashamed for having some degree of cautious optimism - the kind that sees a slightly better world, and not dollar signs. And yet.
The author here draws pretty clear lines in what they're talking about - but most readers won't care or even read that far. And the degree of how emotionally charged it is does lead me to think that there's a degree of further discontent, not just the C-suite rhetoric that almost everyone but the actual C-suites can get behind.
> I think it's a bit reductive to flatten the conversation so much.
Is that because I added a TL;DR line, or my entire post?
> I shouldn't feel ashamed for taking some interest and studying machine learning. I shouldn't feel ashamed for having some degree of cautious optimism - the kind that sees a slightly better world, and not dollar signs. And yet.
I agree with this in general. I didn't mean to criticize having interest in it.
> And the degree of how emotionally charged it is does lead me to think that there's a degree of further discontent
Do you mean the discontent outside the C-suite? If so, yes, I agree with that too. But if we start discussing that, we'll be discussing the larger context of economic policy, what it means to be human, what art is, etc.
> Is that because I added a TL;DR line, or my entire post?
The TL;DR was a fine summary of the post, I was talking about the whole of it. Though, now that I re-read it, I see that you were cautious to not make complete generalizations - so my reply was more of a knee-jerk reaction to the implication that most people who oppose the author's style are just "temporarily embarrassed C-suites", unlike the sane people who didn't feel uncomfortable about it.
> I didn't mean to criticize having interest in it.
I don't think you personally did - I was talking about the original post there, not about yours. The sentiment in many communities now is that machine learning itself (or generative AI specifically) is an overhyped, useless well that's basically run dry - and there's no doubt that the dislike of financial grifters is what started their disdain for the whole field.
> the post left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth [...] And the degree of how emotionally charged it is does lead me to think that there's a degree of further discontent
I think part of the problem is that it's generally futile to judge the mental state or hidden motivations of some random person on the internet based solely on something they've written about a particular topic. And yet, we keep trying to do that, over and over and over, and make our own (usually incredibly flawed) judgments about authors based on that.
The post left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth too, mainly because as I've gotten older I don't really enjoy "violence humor" all that much anymore. I think a big part of that is experience: experiencing violence myself (to a fairly minor degree, even), and knowing people who have experienced violence makes joking about violence just not feel particularly funny to me.
But if I step back a bit, my (probably flawed) judgment is pretty mild: I don't think the author is a violent person or would ever actually threaten or bring violence upon colleagues. I'm not even sure the author is even anywhere near as angry about the topic as the post might lead us to believe. Violence humor is just a rhetorical device. And just like any rhetorical device, it will resonate with some readers but not with others.
There is a decent chance that, yes, this rant is quite literally aimed at the people that frequent Hacker News. Where else are you going to find a more concentrated bunch of people peddling AI hype, creating AI startups, and generally over-selling their capabilities than here?
The issue its that its not just with technology, but absolutely anything that could be loosely defined as an expert-client relationship. Management always budgets less time and money than what anyone with expertise in the subject would feel is necessary. So most things are compromised from the outset, and if they are successful its miraculous that the uncredited experts that moved heaven and earth overcame such an obstinate manager. Its no wonder most businesses fail.
This is a common problem across all fields. A classic example is that you don't change SAP to suit your particular business, but instead you change your business to suit SAP.
Senior management's skill set is fundamentally not technical competence, business competence, financial competence, or even leadership competence. It's politics and social skills (or less charitably, schmoozing). Executives haven't cared about the "how" of anything to do with their business since the last generation of managers from before the cult of the MBA aged out
I deleted my comment to the author's chutzpah. It had a bit of "IamTheMainCharacter" and "IamAveryStableGenius" qualities. The thing is, I agree with them, even if I want to say "dial the ego down mate" -and after all if you cannot parade your worth on your own blog, where can you?
Still. I prefer self-deprecating. Maybe you don't get seniority in his space if you don't sell.
I haven't seen much of OP's style lately, especially since n-gate[1] went inactive.
I'm wondering whether that's a bad thing. Although the tone is hostile on the surface, there's usually some aspiration toward competence associated with it.
n-gate was the best. Referencing it was always worth the downvotes.
I get we are semi-autistic nerds and can't appreciate comedy/satire/sarcasm, but comedy/satire/sarcasm is a potent means of criticism and analysis, especially since we are in an ever-increasing torrent of bullshit.
HN is a bit too serious I think. More comedy would be better than the usual cynicism which can bleed over into your mindset even after visiting the site. You are what you read, after all. Maybe even this comment comes off as cynical; no doubt I’ve been infected too.
I don't think it's changed much. I think perceptions of the kind you're describing (HN is turning into reddit, comments are getting worse, etc.) are more a statement about the perceiver than about HN itself, which to me seems same-as-it-ever-was. I don't know, however.
TL;DR: I think you're right. Ty for maintaining HN!
> are more a statement about the perceiver than about HN itself
I may have some rose tint to my oldest memories of lurking HN. Not only was I younger, but I was also seeing hours-old threads instead of comments arriving in real-time before any sorting or flagging.
In other words, thank you for maintaining the site all these years.
It would indeed be ridiculous; also stupid and counterproductive. Those could be clues to the fact that we didn't do it.
Some of your comments are getting killed by software filters. Those are tuned more strictly for new accounts, for reasons which aren't hard to figure out.
I don't think any mods even saw your comments (before now)
Well, thank you software filters. Are you sure they're working correctly because all my comments except my first are getting killed. What did I do? This is no fun.
Author makes good points but suffers from “i am genius and you are an idiot” syndrome which makes it seem mostly the ranting of an asshole vs a coherent article about the state of AI.
Especially since most "data scientists" turn spreadsheets into reports for the C suite, I'd argue that his entire role fits into the same arguments he makes against AI. Like he says, unless you're doing things on the cutting edge, I don't think most businesses have seen positive outcomes from employing data "scientists" or "engineers". They just take people's excel spreadsheets and make them prettier, taking approximately one quarter to implement each into Power BI.
Also being 5 years into his career thinking he actually groks how it all works is adorable. I get the impression he has the idea that work is supposed to be a rewarding passion project rather than getting shit done for your boss. Give me all the cushy bullshit AI projects please. I can play with the toys for 6 months and come back with whatever and it will be perfectly acceptable. Either "this is great, super helpful for the company" or "welp, the tech isn't there yet, but at least we tried". That's called riding the gravy train.
I've recently read through many of the author's articles and also through his LinkedIn content, and came to the opposite conclusion. The intentional "In-Your-Face-Trolling" style is intended as a cover for "Impostor Syndrome in Overdrive", which lots of us suffer. Yet he was able to fool so many! Just check the "Compliments" section on his website :)
I made the following comment about him in a conversation with a coworker:
"
The guy who authored the article is mad. Certifiably mad. Just spewing around pure unadulterated truth. (LinkedIn link goes here)
What does it tell about me (or anybody) who so far hadn't found anything in his writings to disagree about?
"
Krazam (search YouTube) is the other example of largely the same. But because it is visual it is a bit more obvious.
There's so much about this guy's work that just flies over most peoples' heads, but that's fine by me. Most people don't get it, regardless of what _it_ is.
This is the only blog that I actively look forward to reading.
> It seems like most of the comment thread failed to pick up on this.
At that point, is it a problem of most of the comment thread, or the way it was written?
I may say something that comes across really snarky to my coworker. Just because I didn't mean it to be snarky does not mean that it won't be interpreted that way.
Also, I have a feeling a lot of the comment thread are fluent in both English and online culture. This doesn't come across as a good-faith argument.
It's like I say something that comes across as snarky, my coworker confronts me about it, and I say "oh don't worry about it, if you came from low-context culture you would understand." It's very demeaning. Not to mention unsympathetic.
Many people think satire or similar humor is serious, it happens in real life as you mentioned. There are many times the Onion has been quoted as a source.
However, since we are talking about people being rational, then the points and links above that show this is satirical should lead people to make their own decision.
Hopefully, this doesn’t become a place for people to draw lines in the sand.
> I may say something that comes across really snarky to my coworker. Just because I didn't mean it to be snarky does not mean that it won't be interpreted that way.
I think the difference is knowing your audience. You probably have a decent handle on which of your coworkers will appreciate and understand your snark, and which won't. You'll change your tone and what you say accordingly. Sometimes you'll get it wrong, because you're human, and we all get things wrong sometimes. In those instances you might briefly apologize for creating confusion or causing offense, and you both quickly move on with your day.
But if you're writing a blog post, you don't really know your audience. If you have a regular audience, that audience probably exists because they "get you" and like what you write and how you write it. So in a way you do know your audience: by definition, they've self-selected to be people who get your writing.
But then you decide to submit one of your blog posts to a community of varied individuals like HN. Some people on HN are like your existing audience, and will like it. Some people on HN are not going to get it, or not going to like it.
That's... just life. So I think "is it a problem [with] the way it was written?" is the wrong question. There really can't be a problem with how it was written. Certainly there are (mostly subjective) standards for how well something is written, regardless of the way it's written, but you can't really say the author was wrong to write in the combative, extreme style that they've chosen as their entire online shtick. Because it's meaningless to be "right" or "wrong" about that; those terms aren't defined for that. It's only what someone may like or dislike, and the author should (rightly, IMO) not be particularly concerned about that in this context.
I personally didn't enjoy the article that much; I don't find joking about violence to be funny, and it even makes me a little uncomfortable. I read through the whole thing because I found the topic interesting and his opinions on it worth reading. But that's just my own personal subjective take, and it's both fine for me to feel that way, and fine for others to enjoy the humor more than I did.
> The post's humor is a style which won't make sense if you're not fluent in both English and online culture.
Oh, please. That's like saying that only native speakers with a university degree can understand a 6 year old's fart jokes.
The humor in this article is juvenile shock-jocking. It starts from the trashy clickbait headline, and is never elevated past that. There's no particular sophistication needed to understand it. It's just not particularly funny or insightful; it's just taking some rote complaints about AI and the hype cycle, and threatening to kill people in various graphic ways. Hilarious.
It's called ironic/satirical, actually. And irony can't be understood if there's not the same knowledge about a thing. So understanding the irony and humor in this means the thinking expressed in the post is aligned to the reader's. If one can understand it, one already shows the same thinking patterns about the topic (corresponds to having the same knowledge..)
"'t ain't funny, McGee." The author isn't talented enough to pull off the humor angle so it just comes across as what kids these day refer to as "cringe".
I think he's polarizing because he's right about the industry and everybody on both sides knows it. Many people in the industry are just selling snake oil. There's also a ton of idiots such as the people who misconfigure cloud software to waste half a million dollars of company money. A truth teller comes off as an a-hole to people who don't want particular truths to be told.
> A truth teller comes off as an a-hole to people who don't want particular truths to be told
If someone is repeatedly threatening physical violence, as the author of this post is, that also tends to come off as an a-hole to some people even if the threats are not genuine.
I agree the author of this post is saying accurate things, and that will piss people off, too.
So we have two completely separate ways in which someone might think the author is an a-hole. They aren't all trying to hide some truth, like you imply.
It is not serious. You shouldn't see it as a literal threat. It's a writing tool. Just like adding "fucking" to something doesn't literally mean that that thing is copulating.
I have read only a few sentences, so it can't be the hard truths that give off this vibe. Saying you are one of the greats based on things someone inexperienced would list underlined by the very short time in the industry comes off as arogant.
>Many people in the industry are just selling snake oil
We have always been selling snake oil - its just the inexperienced and those who have never shipped anything of any value to the world that feel that the snake oil is where the buck stops - but those of us who have shipped tons of snake oil know that eventually that oil congeals and becomes an essential substance in the grinding wheels of industry.
Which this wanker (Disclaimer: Australian, can use it if I wanna, since I know a lot about snakes, too..) seems to not have fully understood yet, as there is a great deal of evidence to support the fact that their experience is mostly academic, and hasn't actually resulted in anything being shipped.
Academics seem too often to forget that software is a service industry and in such a context, snakes and oil are very definitely par for the course.
Nobody cares if you implemented the important bits all by yourself - what are your USERS doing with it? Oh, you don't have actual users? Then please STFU and let the snake wranglers get on with it ..
“ Nobody cares if you implemented the important bits all by yourself - what are your USERS doing with it? Oh, you don't have actual users? Then please STFU and let the snake wranglers get on with it ..”
I got the opposite impression of the article that it was mostly about the fact that companies thought they needed to be to theoretical and academic and in fact taking advantage of AI should be looked at very practically. Granted it’s a long article and he makes lots of points, but I felt like most of the part of section 4 was that you don’t need to implement it yourself and gluing libraries together was probably the right tack, and that most companies were ignoring this in the gold rush of “AI good”.
Author sounds like a young person who feels like he's a god among men just for the fact that he's implemented the algortihms and understands the math and engineering behind the libraries most DS's just pip install.
Which is weird coming from a generation of devs, where actually doing this work yourself was the norm.
As for DS, from what little I've experienced from the field, he sounds right. Most people come in without a mathematically rigorous education, they talk fancy, but what they end up doing is pulling in dependencies from a pre-written library and using those without understanding the theory behind them.
They also ignore the fact that 99% of the value in data science is created by taking good data, understanding the domain, in which case fancy algorithms are unnecessary. And the acquisition of said things needs good data engineering, not data science.
But more often than not, the credit and prestige goes to folks who pull in fancy ML algorithms and run extensive experiments and build massive ML pipelines, feeding in truckloads of tangentially relevant data.
You start quite condescending but then basically acknowledge what the author is saying. Most DS's, even "from your generation" probably don't write their own tools. I bet you are even guilty of this too. No need to do some implicit grandstanding.
Not sure about tall-poppy syndrome, but I think it's somewhat justified (this could be argued though) that success most often doesn't look like what we think it should look like.
In most people's minds success should come from a combination of talent and hard work. We think people who work hard and come up with good ideas should become successful.
But usually working 'within the system' limits your ability to be succesful. If you save the day at your current job, you might get a 20% raise if you're lucky. If you are mediocre but change jobs often, you will probably beat that.
In software, getting a high paying job usually hinges on your ability to get someone willing to pay you a lot of money.
I'm sure there are people who are getting paid 10x more or less for doing work that is fundamentally the same, just with different presentation.
For example I know a guy who's a mediocre PHP dev, but managed to snag a couple of high paying clients, and got into OE over covid, and brings in a ton of money, despite the fact that somehow he still doesn't seem to be working that hard.
Does he deserve that money? Is he someone we should look up to? I don't wanna say no, but I also don't wanna say yes.
> We think people who work hard and come up with good ideas should become successful.
I think that's some sort of platonic ideal that hasn't really been all that true for a long time, though. What brings success is coming up with valuable[0] ideas, and then executing well on them. There are many ideas that are good that are unfortunately not so valuable. And there are many people who work hard but just aren't all that talented or effective or productive, and their work ends up not amounting to much.
> Does [someone who doesn't work that hard but has high income] deserve that money? Is he someone we should look up to? I don't wanna say no, but I also don't wanna say yes.
Maybe we should step back and consider that this is the wrong question. "Looking up to" someone is an emotional thing; IMO we should only look up to people for intangible "virtuous" reasons, not because e.g. they've managed to make a bunch of money. Look up to people because they are honest, have integrity, are kind, and help people.
"This guy makes a lot of money despite not working very hard" should be viewed dispassionately. Evaluate the work itself, and the representation and selling of that work. If it's done with integrity, the product of the work is as promised, and no one is harmed, then it may be worth emulating.
I personally think that the social conditioning we've all gotten that suggests that hard work is good and virtuous is garbage, and is an attitude and message that has acted as a tool of oppressors. I hesitate to repeat the "work smarter, not harder" buzz-phrase, but I think there's a lot of truth there.
[0] I don't even necessarily mean "valuable" in the monetary sense, though that too-often is a big driver.
Only a small portion of HN users are in Silicon Valley. Last time I looked at the numbers (a few years ago) it was around 10%. About 50% were in the US overall, a third or so in Europe, and so on.
I have Australian friends and they are not like this.
Sorry but, being Australian doesn't get you a free pass to banter everywhere and still expect to be taken seriously. Let alone spill self-diagnosed superiority in form of text.
He grew up in Penang, moved to Australia in 2013 according to his blog.
I'm not a fan of the "I'll break your neck" theme. He doesn't want people talking about AI but his own business website says he'll talk to you about AI in exchange for money.
Does he want to be Louis CK Live at the Beacon Theater AND a data scientist consultant? I don't think it's possible to be both.
Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. I know you didn't intend to but it's what this kind of internet comment leads to (in the general case), and we don't want that here.
In fact, since your comment is a putdown both of a nationality and of the community, it might be good to quote this from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."
You realize that this comment was a very minor tease?
This community is so Us-centric that the pro-US-on-anything bias drives basically every voting trend, and the issue is just teasing how Americans don’t understand other nationalities’ humor and cultural nuances?
Unfortunately people tend to underestimate their own provocations by orders of magnitude. Even when we get full out flamewars the instigator inevitably says things like 'but I was only mildly teasing' or what have you. In any case, what matters is effects, not intent, and that's what we have to moderate by (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). The effects of snark, flamebait, and so on are predictable, so commenters are responsible for avoiding them.
I almost laughed out loud when he said he started working as a data scientist in 2019. Five years is not a very long time. And he claims he already had identified the entire field as full of fraud in the first two years of that!
I agree with a lot of the article's points, but the author took a serious credibility hit with me after asserting that two years of from-scratch experience is enough time to evaluate an entire subfield of computer science.
which is a weird thing, since I think in fields where most people can be assumed to be smart, there's usually not that much differentiation in cognitive ability.
Just for reference, if we take IQ as a proxy measure for intelligence, an average group of people (say, a high school class, a council meeting), the worst 10% will have an IQ of <80 with the best 10% will have an IQ of >120.
That's the difference of 40 points, and its a common enough scenario for most people to get a feel of what it's like.
In contrast, lets say you have a room of professionals, who have been screened to be in the top 10% of the population (not a huge stretch) as a cutoff. In this scenario, you'd need 100k people in this hypothetical room to get a similarly large IQ gap.
While I think the author might be a sharp guy, and probably studied his field deeper than most, to say there's an insurmountable chasm between him and the rest of his readers might be a bit of a stretch.
But hey, if you want to sell your unique genius as your upscale consulting brand, I guess this is how you market yourself.
I don't think that is the goal of this blog. I think he is bragging a bit because he is afraid people will ask: "Who is this nobody that talks about AI as if he knows anything about it?"
He is trying to qualify himself to give this opinion. He uses a hyperbolic style.
I for one like it. But I like style and care less about the background of people to be honest. I think a good analysis is a good analysis regardless of who makes it.
I don't disagree entirely, but there is a pretty strong hint of the self-aware dry humour typical of Australians. I think he believes what he's saying, but they're probably not taking themselves that seriously or literally.
> We ship working software: to users who find it valuable.
I agree that's what's most likely to bring you financial and reputational success, but I also think there are a lot of things people can and do sell that are various incarnations of snake oil, at best.
This perhaps gets a little philosophical, but: is it ethical to sell someone something they don't need, and doesn't actually help them, even if they believe they need it, and over time even believe they've been helped by it?
I think a lot of the applications of "AI" today can fall under that umbrella, given the "right" customer.
I am talking about people, not politics. Unless you think individual Australians, are well known for their personal authoritarianism?
I don't find myself conducting much authoritarianism but admittedly I do keep a pretty tight grip on the movements of my budgies. It's for their own good you see.
As a prominent sporter of budgie smugglers myself, yes, I do in fact think that Australian identity involves a great deal of authoritarianism. Its how the country was built, after all.
I will genuinely think this through, as I had never considered it could be part of a collective identity. I think in general Australians are quite disconnected from politics. Complacency is likely how we ended up with our authoritarian leanings in politics, rather than Australians having a desire for a more authoritarian government. But I do live in a bit of a bubble, and I do know when isses of security come up Australians seem pretty happy to give the government more control.
Authoritarianism is not just a political ideology, it is also a psychological personality which can be triggered by a multitude of factors. Australians have had a century for this memetic mental virus to be inculcated into their society - the easiest way to see this is to leave, learn another language, and then come back...
I feel his frustration with the grifters, the kool aid drinkers and makers.
For me the writing felt authentic and entertaining. Emotionally charged but rightfully so. It is incredibly disturbing to see people lying with a straight face and getting insane investments.
> but suffers from “i am genius and you are an idiot” syndrome
But he's still nowhere near as unhinged as the rabid AI bullshittery shitting up the airwaves for the past year
Not a lot of room for nuance when the subject matter is this polluted. Typical HN convention of preferring nuance to outright dismissal is bad at filtering BS
When I see people getting hyped up about AI, I just roll my eyes and move on. But now, quite a few people in the anti-AI camp are getting more hyped up than its promoters, jumping at the throats of anyone who dares mention the term. The recent harassment campaign from Mastodon folks toward the iTerm2 dev was a particularly disturbing one.
I personally would stay far far away from either of these two camps.
It seems like “I am genius and you are an idiot syndrome" and "ranting of an asshole" are on opposite ends of the spectrum, and directly in opposition to each other.
The very sort of hypemongers and grifters the author complains about often hide unsustainable claims behind complicated language and opaque terminology, with the intent of portraying themselves as experts and making clear-headed criticism seem uneducated or uninformed in comparison.
The author here is making a deliberate choice to use a ranty tone to cut through that sort of bullshit, and in doing so, successfully expressed his frustration with the pervasive level of hype in AI discussions.
Which is a pity. The style is excellent & so wonderful, is a critical relief, after suffering through insane out of this world hype-bordering-religion. At least to me; he doesn't read as menacing, he reads as being on a justifiably distraught polemic against total madness that's allowed to pointlessly suck up all the oxygen in the room.
We should be flipping our shit (if not each other) that we have to put up with this endless exuberant schucksterism. That robs us of agency & pollutes our noosphere with inauthentic bullshitting.
Someone's angry and resentful at software developers and business people interested in AI. Ok.
The author also takes some kind of authority stance as a "data scientist" being uniquely qualified to talk about the subject.
The article follows the format of sections with titles as interrupted quotes from people "mentioning AI" and the author shutting them up, let's see what amazing arguments they offer for "not talking about AI"
"
"III. We've Already Seen Extensive Gains From-"
When I was younger, I read R.A Salvatore's classic fantasy novel, The Crystal Shard. There is a scene in it where the young protagonist, Wulfgar, challenges a barbarian chieftain.... "
Just at a glance, we have business people on one side talking about income and how to increase it. On the other we have an enraged nerd talking about his favourite high-fantasy fake world. Gee, I wonder whose side I should be on, is this an ad for AI hype?
" Well this is me. Begging you. To stop lying. I don't want to crush your skull, I really don't.
But I will if you make me."
... Is OP threatening us?
I say this unironically now OP, this sounds like schizophrenic, I won't suggest you "take your meds", but at least consult a psychiatrist if you haven't already.
I'm really sick and tired of kids coming in and shitting on what we had to do to search a tb worth of data in 2009 (or 2004).
A computer in 2019 (or 2024) has enough power to run postgress queries to extract statistics from columns.
Yeah, great.
Now try running that stack on an iphone 7 and report your results back. We didn't create all that complexity for shits and giggles, we did it because it was at the edge of what was possible and the companies that got it right made billions.
Mostly the world has to sit back and suffer for this clown car of over enthused business types promising us that their AI will make all our lives better. Mostly the world has to let this weirdly quasi-cultish hype run unchecked.
I'm frelling pissed about it. I frelling miss personal computing being an aspiration; I wish we were actually improving systems. Instead we're investing billions to make machines good bullshitters. It's enormously relieving seeing such rancorous disgust on display here.
597 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 431 ms ] threadAnd (theseFeets) in (yourNutz).
> I'm going to ask ChatGPT how to prepare a garotte and then I am going to strangle you with it, and you will simply have to pray that I roll the 10% chance that it freaks out and tells me that a garotte should consist entirely of paper mache and malice.
Sadly it’s got a much greater than 10% chance of getting a garotte wrong.
welp
It would be so much bolder and more mature if he threatened to run with scissors or hold his breath until he turned blue ;)
He may have some good points but might be more detracting than helping them stick.
This entire comments section is exemplary of the industry at large. We're doing fucking _engineering work_ "professionally" and the bitching is 50:1 on his tone versus his actual ideas.
The entire professional class has been brought to its knees by a culture that demands we tiptoe around everyone's insecurities.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40734677
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40734700
I know occasionally a “discuss the title” thread is allowed, but this one is almost strictly worse than just the title without the link, since we don’t get useless comments on the author in the latter case.
Oh, and I say this as someone who vaguely agree with the sentiment.
Seven | eight or more prior submissions have been flagged. They've been vouched for, flagged again, marked dead, and resubmitted .. by many different unaligned not bot people.
As dang noted above the HN community wants to thrash this out .. some want it deader than a parrot, others want to comment that much of the AI hype appears to have no clothes and this opinion range comes from 10 year old active accounts (and more recent ones).
In such cases the story is going to keep showing up no matter what we do. If we don't yield after 14 submissions we're destined to yield after 140! I'd rather yield after 14. It's just one thread, and easy enough to move on from.
I'm not banning you at the moment because it wouldn't feel sporting to do so in response to a personal remark. But if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules going forward, that would be good.
It's only after I read it via twitter that I dug back in to see the thread. I agree that this might be seen as "outrage porn"... but who really doesn't love a good rant? It's good to discharge the thundercloud of disquiet through at least one good thread, such as this one.
As for me, and my perspective, I took the Stanford AI course back when it showed up here, and others... just to learn the mechanics of it, and it's fascinating. The hype cycle on this though, is off the charts.
I came to see if there were any others who wanted to get actual legislation to passed to help set up "Thought Leader Jail". ;-)
I really didn't have any illusions on the article after reading this - apparently the author believes that anyone who hasn't written a C library is below him.
And also, this author is known to make articles that are full of ranting and have rage titles, for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34968457
I'd really like to read it that way, but I'm afraid he actually did come across that arrogant.
“I'm not God's gift to the field, but I am clearly better than most of my competition - that is, practitioners like myself who haven't put in the reps to build their own C libraries in a cave with scraps, but can read textbooks and use libraries written by elite institutions.“
It’s quite poorly written, but they note they’re clearly better than most of their competition.
Yup, I've noted that three times. Are we still claiming he wrote libraries in C in a cave with scraps? Or just moving on?
Poorly written? Maybe. Poorly read? Equally likely. Maybe we should just ask the guy, he'll know.
Did the downvoter see me as their "competition"? "Clearly better"? Both? I don't have enough karma yet to respond in kind, so they're right about something at least.
lol they did it again. mods!
There seems to be a comprehension issue on one side or the other. Can someone point me to where he says his competition has never written a single library? I only see that he says they haven't written a library "in C in a cave with scraps". Where does he say he's written libraries in C? I don't see that either. Maybe the words "scraps" and "scratch" are too close together? If a subset of readers are inclined to dismiss him out of hand for this perceived slight, nothing I write will convince them otherwise, but that doesn't make their uncharitable interpretation of his words the correct one.
Nobody here but you is taking the "cave" and "scraps" literally. It'd be total nonsense if taken literally. Like, what would it even mean? It's obviously the author trying to make their writing punchy. You should not take it any more seriously than their threats to snap people's necks for talking about AI.
If you want to ignore than actual discussion and steer it toward a discussion of an interpretation of the text that's so literal that the text doesn't even make sense, you should probably be very explicit about it.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
:)
If you subdue the urge to write him off based on his emotionally expressive writing, you'll find a lot of poignant observations you wouldn't get from more civilized venues (e.g. HN, famous tech influencers, thinkers, and execs, etc.).
Ludic's blog is a one-man 4chan board, minus the racism, sexism, and so on.
Uh yeah that's a bit like telling the same joke over and over. In fact it is the same joke.
So I really don't actually know what the OP wants to do, besides brutalize idiots searching for a golden calf to worship. AI will progress regardless of how you gatekeep the public from percieving it, and manipulative thought-leaders will continue to schiester idiots in hopes of turning a quick buck. These cycles will operate independently of one-another, and those overeager idiots will move onto the next fad like Metaverse agriculture or whatever the fuck.
This was true of web tech in the 2000s, social media and mobile apps in the 2010s, crypto, now AI...
There's substance behind most of these topics, they're intellectually interesting, useful to people etc., but they tend to be largely grift, hype, office politics, narcissists tryina narcissist.
But if you don't tell anyone, I won't tell anyone.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40736501
Let me know if you need any further help with the subject.
(My prompt: "okay, do it again, but this time change the tone to be cheerful and encouraging and not so flat.")
Ludicity: Embracing AI Innovations with Caution and Care Published on June 19, 2024
The recent advancements in AI, particularly with developments like GPT-4, are undeniably reshaping our world. These innovations have the potential to eliminate mundane tasks, revolutionize industries, and even pose existential questions about our future.
As someone who has formal training as a data scientist, having excelled in a competitive machine learning event at one of Australia's top universities and written a Master's thesis with custom libraries in MATLAB, I have a unique perspective. I may not be the best, but I am certainly experienced and knowledgeable. So, it's with a mix of concern and optimism that I urge caution in our enthusiasm for rolling out AI everywhere.
Balancing Enthusiasm with Reality
I began my journey as a data scientist in 2019, and by 2021, I realized that while the field is vast and promising, it's also filled with misconceptions and overhype. Many leaders in the industry seemed to push AI initiatives without fully understanding them. The market saw a surge of companies jumping on the AI bandwagon, often without clear use cases, driven by hype rather than genuine need.
Despite the financial rewards, I transitioned to data and software engineering. Unlike those who chase trends for short-term gains, professionals like us value job stability, meaningful relationships, and genuine contributions to our field. The transient nature of hype-driven careers contrasts sharply with the steady, rewarding path of continuous learning and improvement.
Practical Advice for AI Implementation
Instead of blindly adopting AI, focus on the fundamentals. Many companies struggle with basic applications, yet they aim to implement complex AI systems. It's essential to ensure that your organization has the necessary infrastructure, skills, and culture before diving into advanced technologies.
For example, many businesses haven't mastered basic IT operations like regular database backups. Improving these fundamental practices will better position your company to leverage AI effectively when it's truly needed. Emphasize collaboration, clear communication, and mutual respect in problem-solving. This approach will yield more reliable and sustainable results than any rushed AI implementation.
The Future of AI: Opportunities and Challenges
Generative AI, like ChatGPT, has shown remarkable potential, but it's important to distinguish between practical applications and unrealistic expectations. AI can indeed revolutionize industries, but only if used thoughtfully and strategically.
If your company has a clear, well-defined use case for AI, by all means, pursue it. However, for many businesses, the priority should be on improving existing operations and culture. AI will naturally integrate into your processes as it becomes relevant and beneficial. Remember, technology should serve to enhance your capabilities, not distract from core objectives.
Encouraging Thoughtful AI Adoption
Let's approach AI with both enthusiasm and caution. Recognize the incredible potential while also being aware of the limitations and challenges. Embrace AI where it makes sense, but always prioritize the fundamentals of good business practice.
In conclusion, the journey with AI is exciting and full of possibilities. By focusing on solid foundations, continuous learning, and thoughtful implementation, we can harness the power of AI to create a brighter future. Let's work together to make sure our advancements are meaningful, sustainable, and truly beneficial.
Thank you for reading, and let's contin...
It reminds me of every past generation of focusing on the technology, not the underlying hard work + literacy needed to make it real.
Decades ago I saw this - I worked at a hardware company that tried to suddenly be a software company. Not at all internalizing - at every level - what software actually takes to build well. That leading, managing, executing software can't just be done by applying your institutional hardware knowledge to a different craft. It will at best be a half effort as the software craftspeople find themselves attracted to the places that truly understand and respect their craft.
There's a similar thing happening with data literacy where the non data literate hire the data literate, but don't actually internalize those practices or learn from them. They want to continue operating like the always have, but just "plug in AI" (or whatever new thing) without changing fundamentally how they do anything
People want to have AI, but those company's leaders struggle with basic understanding of statistical significance, basic fundamentals of experimentation, and thus essentially destroy any culture needed to build the AI-thing.
I'm in a similar situation with my own 'C-suite' and it's impossible to try and make them understand, they just don't care. I can't make them care. It's a clash of cultures, I guess.
> it's impossible to try and make them understand, they just don't care. I can't make them care. It's a clash of cultures, I guess.
That seems to be what OP's cathartic humor is about. It's also (probably) a deliberate provocation since that sub-culture doesn't deal well with this sort of humor.
If that's the case, you can see it working in this thread. Some of the commenters with the clearest C-suite aspirations are reacting with unironic vitriol as if the post is about them personally.
I think most of those comments already got flagged, but some seemed genuine in accusing OP of being a dangerously ill menace to society, e.g. "...Is OP threatening us?"
In a sense, OP is threatening them, but not with literal violence. He's making fun of their aspirations, and he's doing so with some pretty vicious humor.
It's that the whole conversation around machine learning has become "tainted" - mention AI, and the average person will envision that exact type of an evil MBA this post is rallying against. And I don't want to be associated with them, even implicitly.
I shouldn't feel ashamed for taking some interest and studying machine learning. I shouldn't feel ashamed for having some degree of cautious optimism - the kind that sees a slightly better world, and not dollar signs. And yet.
The author here draws pretty clear lines in what they're talking about - but most readers won't care or even read that far. And the degree of how emotionally charged it is does lead me to think that there's a degree of further discontent, not just the C-suite rhetoric that almost everyone but the actual C-suites can get behind.
Is that because I added a TL;DR line, or my entire post?
> I shouldn't feel ashamed for taking some interest and studying machine learning. I shouldn't feel ashamed for having some degree of cautious optimism - the kind that sees a slightly better world, and not dollar signs. And yet.
I agree with this in general. I didn't mean to criticize having interest in it.
> And the degree of how emotionally charged it is does lead me to think that there's a degree of further discontent
Do you mean the discontent outside the C-suite? If so, yes, I agree with that too. But if we start discussing that, we'll be discussing the larger context of economic policy, what it means to be human, what art is, etc.
The TL;DR was a fine summary of the post, I was talking about the whole of it. Though, now that I re-read it, I see that you were cautious to not make complete generalizations - so my reply was more of a knee-jerk reaction to the implication that most people who oppose the author's style are just "temporarily embarrassed C-suites", unlike the sane people who didn't feel uncomfortable about it.
> I didn't mean to criticize having interest in it.
I don't think you personally did - I was talking about the original post there, not about yours. The sentiment in many communities now is that machine learning itself (or generative AI specifically) is an overhyped, useless well that's basically run dry - and there's no doubt that the dislike of financial grifters is what started their disdain for the whole field.
> Do you mean the discontent outside the C-suite?
Yes.
I think part of the problem is that it's generally futile to judge the mental state or hidden motivations of some random person on the internet based solely on something they've written about a particular topic. And yet, we keep trying to do that, over and over and over, and make our own (usually incredibly flawed) judgments about authors based on that.
The post left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth too, mainly because as I've gotten older I don't really enjoy "violence humor" all that much anymore. I think a big part of that is experience: experiencing violence myself (to a fairly minor degree, even), and knowing people who have experienced violence makes joking about violence just not feel particularly funny to me.
But if I step back a bit, my (probably flawed) judgment is pretty mild: I don't think the author is a violent person or would ever actually threaten or bring violence upon colleagues. I'm not even sure the author is even anywhere near as angry about the topic as the post might lead us to believe. Violence humor is just a rhetorical device. And just like any rhetorical device, it will resonate with some readers but not with others.
There is a decent chance that, yes, this rant is quite literally aimed at the people that frequent Hacker News. Where else are you going to find a more concentrated bunch of people peddling AI hype, creating AI startups, and generally over-selling their capabilities than here?
I think we should do a HN backed project, crowd funded style.
1. Identify the best P-hackers in current science with solid uptake on their content (citations).
2. Pay them to conduct a study proving that C levels who eat crayons have higher something... revenue, pay, job satisfaction, all three.
3. buy stock in crayons
4. Publish and hype, profit.
5. Short crayons and out your publication as fraud.
6. Profit
Continue to work out of spite, always with a crayon on hand for when every someone from the C-suite demands something stupid and offer it to them.
A man can dream... I feel like this is the plot to a Hunter S Thompson writes Brave new World set in the universe of Silicon Valley.
I should be a prompt engineer.
Still. I prefer self-deprecating. Maybe you don't get seniority in his space if you don't sell.
But yes. Clearly self aware. Just doesn't care. Which is fine too: it's his blog.
It seems like HN comments are shifting from technical focus toward:
* Early Reddit's low-effort but tame "snark"
* Aggressively moralizing posts dismissing sardonic criticism as dangerous mental illness
I haven't seen much of OP's style lately, especially since n-gate[1] went inactive.
I'm wondering whether that's a bad thing. Although the tone is hostile on the surface, there's usually some aspiration toward competence associated with it.
[1]: http://n-gate.com/
I get we are semi-autistic nerds and can't appreciate comedy/satire/sarcasm, but comedy/satire/sarcasm is a potent means of criticism and analysis, especially since we are in an ever-increasing torrent of bullshit.
What qualifies as skepticism versus cynicism is often in the eye of the beholder.
> are more a statement about the perceiver than about HN itself
I may have some rose tint to my oldest memories of lurking HN. Not only was I younger, but I was also seeing hours-old threads instead of comments arriving in real-time before any sorting or flagging.
In other words, thank you for maintaining the site all these years.
It's ok though, because the perception "HN isn't what it used to be" is somehow part of the overall system.
Some of your comments are getting killed by software filters. Those are tuned more strictly for new accounts, for reasons which aren't hard to figure out.
I don't think any mods even saw your comments (before now)
Also being 5 years into his career thinking he actually groks how it all works is adorable. I get the impression he has the idea that work is supposed to be a rewarding passion project rather than getting shit done for your boss. Give me all the cushy bullshit AI projects please. I can play with the toys for 6 months and come back with whatever and it will be perfectly acceptable. Either "this is great, super helpful for the company" or "welp, the tech isn't there yet, but at least we tried". That's called riding the gravy train.
I made the following comment about him in a conversation with a coworker: " The guy who authored the article is mad. Certifiably mad. Just spewing around pure unadulterated truth. (LinkedIn link goes here) What does it tell about me (or anybody) who so far hadn't found anything in his writings to disagree about? "
Krazam (search YouTube) is the other example of largely the same. But because it is visual it is a bit more obvious.
It tells they're too excited by the delivery and aren't thinking about the merit of what's being said.
Same mistake people made with all those "tells it as it is" vloggers and pundits.
1. "ludic" means playful[1].
2. The blog's tagline implies this is satire:
> "Wow, if I was the leader of this person's company I would immediately terminate them." [2]
It seems like most of the comment thread failed to pick up on this.
That's understandable. The post's humor is a style which won't make sense if you're not fluent in both English and online culture.
Even if you understand the style, you also might not like it.
1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ludic
2. https://ludic.mataroa.blog/
This is the only blog that I actively look forward to reading.
I am not fluent in either and I'm in love with his style and substance!
At that point, is it a problem of most of the comment thread, or the way it was written?
I may say something that comes across really snarky to my coworker. Just because I didn't mean it to be snarky does not mean that it won't be interpreted that way.
Also, I have a feeling a lot of the comment thread are fluent in both English and online culture. This doesn't come across as a good-faith argument.
It's like I say something that comes across as snarky, my coworker confronts me about it, and I say "oh don't worry about it, if you came from low-context culture you would understand." It's very demeaning. Not to mention unsympathetic.
Maybe OP's fault for posting it here, then. It's angry cathartic humor, so you're right not everyone will appreciate it.
> This doesn't come across as a good-faith argument.
It was meant to be, but you're also right that it no longer seems to be true:
* the aggressive knee-jerk stuff is getting flagged quickly
* more comments have been posted
> It's very demeaning.
I see your point given the way the thread is evolving. However, the posts I was referring to were implying OP is a schizophrenic[1] or bipolar.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40734705
However, since we are talking about people being rational, then the points and links above that show this is satirical should lead people to make their own decision.
Hopefully, this doesn’t become a place for people to draw lines in the sand.
I think the difference is knowing your audience. You probably have a decent handle on which of your coworkers will appreciate and understand your snark, and which won't. You'll change your tone and what you say accordingly. Sometimes you'll get it wrong, because you're human, and we all get things wrong sometimes. In those instances you might briefly apologize for creating confusion or causing offense, and you both quickly move on with your day.
But if you're writing a blog post, you don't really know your audience. If you have a regular audience, that audience probably exists because they "get you" and like what you write and how you write it. So in a way you do know your audience: by definition, they've self-selected to be people who get your writing.
But then you decide to submit one of your blog posts to a community of varied individuals like HN. Some people on HN are like your existing audience, and will like it. Some people on HN are not going to get it, or not going to like it.
That's... just life. So I think "is it a problem [with] the way it was written?" is the wrong question. There really can't be a problem with how it was written. Certainly there are (mostly subjective) standards for how well something is written, regardless of the way it's written, but you can't really say the author was wrong to write in the combative, extreme style that they've chosen as their entire online shtick. Because it's meaningless to be "right" or "wrong" about that; those terms aren't defined for that. It's only what someone may like or dislike, and the author should (rightly, IMO) not be particularly concerned about that in this context.
I personally didn't enjoy the article that much; I don't find joking about violence to be funny, and it even makes me a little uncomfortable. I read through the whole thing because I found the topic interesting and his opinions on it worth reading. But that's just my own personal subjective take, and it's both fine for me to feel that way, and fine for others to enjoy the humor more than I did.
Oh, please. That's like saying that only native speakers with a university degree can understand a 6 year old's fart jokes.
The humor in this article is juvenile shock-jocking. It starts from the trashy clickbait headline, and is never elevated past that. There's no particular sophistication needed to understand it. It's just not particularly funny or insightful; it's just taking some rote complaints about AI and the hype cycle, and threatening to kill people in various graphic ways. Hilarious.
If someone is repeatedly threatening physical violence, as the author of this post is, that also tends to come off as an a-hole to some people even if the threats are not genuine.
I agree the author of this post is saying accurate things, and that will piss people off, too.
So we have two completely separate ways in which someone might think the author is an a-hole. They aren't all trying to hide some truth, like you imply.
The choice to use the writing tool in question makes the author come off like an a-hole.
Really? I think most people will agree that it's a writing style (not that I enjoy it) rather than the author really threatening actual violence.
> even if the threats are not genuine
My point is that using that writing style makes the author come off as an a-hole.
We have always been selling snake oil - its just the inexperienced and those who have never shipped anything of any value to the world that feel that the snake oil is where the buck stops - but those of us who have shipped tons of snake oil know that eventually that oil congeals and becomes an essential substance in the grinding wheels of industry.
Which this wanker (Disclaimer: Australian, can use it if I wanna, since I know a lot about snakes, too..) seems to not have fully understood yet, as there is a great deal of evidence to support the fact that their experience is mostly academic, and hasn't actually resulted in anything being shipped.
Academics seem too often to forget that software is a service industry and in such a context, snakes and oil are very definitely par for the course.
Nobody cares if you implemented the important bits all by yourself - what are your USERS doing with it? Oh, you don't have actual users? Then please STFU and let the snake wranglers get on with it ..
I got the opposite impression of the article that it was mostly about the fact that companies thought they needed to be to theoretical and academic and in fact taking advantage of AI should be looked at very practically. Granted it’s a long article and he makes lots of points, but I felt like most of the part of section 4 was that you don’t need to implement it yourself and gluing libraries together was probably the right tack, and that most companies were ignoring this in the gold rush of “AI good”.
Which is weird coming from a generation of devs, where actually doing this work yourself was the norm.
As for DS, from what little I've experienced from the field, he sounds right. Most people come in without a mathematically rigorous education, they talk fancy, but what they end up doing is pulling in dependencies from a pre-written library and using those without understanding the theory behind them.
They also ignore the fact that 99% of the value in data science is created by taking good data, understanding the domain, in which case fancy algorithms are unnecessary. And the acquisition of said things needs good data engineering, not data science.
But more often than not, the credit and prestige goes to folks who pull in fancy ML algorithms and run extensive experiments and build massive ML pipelines, feeding in truckloads of tangentially relevant data.
Telling self-righteous... friends, to wind their neck in is far more Australian than OP's behaviour.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome
Edit:
To clarify, I have no problem with his style of writing, which is great, but "I am clearly better than most of my competition"? Lord, get a grip.
In most people's minds success should come from a combination of talent and hard work. We think people who work hard and come up with good ideas should become successful. But usually working 'within the system' limits your ability to be succesful. If you save the day at your current job, you might get a 20% raise if you're lucky. If you are mediocre but change jobs often, you will probably beat that.
In software, getting a high paying job usually hinges on your ability to get someone willing to pay you a lot of money.
I'm sure there are people who are getting paid 10x more or less for doing work that is fundamentally the same, just with different presentation.
For example I know a guy who's a mediocre PHP dev, but managed to snag a couple of high paying clients, and got into OE over covid, and brings in a ton of money, despite the fact that somehow he still doesn't seem to be working that hard.
Does he deserve that money? Is he someone we should look up to? I don't wanna say no, but I also don't wanna say yes.
I think that's some sort of platonic ideal that hasn't really been all that true for a long time, though. What brings success is coming up with valuable[0] ideas, and then executing well on them. There are many ideas that are good that are unfortunately not so valuable. And there are many people who work hard but just aren't all that talented or effective or productive, and their work ends up not amounting to much.
> Does [someone who doesn't work that hard but has high income] deserve that money? Is he someone we should look up to? I don't wanna say no, but I also don't wanna say yes.
Maybe we should step back and consider that this is the wrong question. "Looking up to" someone is an emotional thing; IMO we should only look up to people for intangible "virtuous" reasons, not because e.g. they've managed to make a bunch of money. Look up to people because they are honest, have integrity, are kind, and help people.
"This guy makes a lot of money despite not working very hard" should be viewed dispassionately. Evaluate the work itself, and the representation and selling of that work. If it's done with integrity, the product of the work is as promised, and no one is harmed, then it may be worth emulating.
I personally think that the social conditioning we've all gotten that suggests that hard work is good and virtuous is garbage, and is an attitude and message that has acted as a tool of oppressors. I hesitate to repeat the "work smarter, not harder" buzz-phrase, but I think there's a lot of truth there.
[0] I don't even necessarily mean "valuable" in the monetary sense, though that too-often is a big driver.
Sorry but, being Australian doesn't get you a free pass to banter everywhere and still expect to be taken seriously. Let alone spill self-diagnosed superiority in form of text.
I'm not a fan of the "I'll break your neck" theme. He doesn't want people talking about AI but his own business website says he'll talk to you about AI in exchange for money.
Does he want to be Louis CK Live at the Beacon Theater AND a data scientist consultant? I don't think it's possible to be both.
In fact, since your comment is a putdown both of a nationality and of the community, it might be good to quote this from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."
By the way, this has been a problem in the past: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20657986 (Aug 2019), and we've had to ask you several times not to break HN's guidelines in other ways too. Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and recalibrate how you're posting to this site?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38286445 (Nov 2023)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35619557 (April 2023)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33885502 (Dec 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127589 (Aug 2017)
I almost laughed out loud when he said he started working as a data scientist in 2019. Five years is not a very long time. And he claims he already had identified the entire field as full of fraud in the first two years of that!
I agree with a lot of the article's points, but the author took a serious credibility hit with me after asserting that two years of from-scratch experience is enough time to evaluate an entire subfield of computer science.
Its getting into the art/performance category of code blogs.
which is a weird thing, since I think in fields where most people can be assumed to be smart, there's usually not that much differentiation in cognitive ability.
Just for reference, if we take IQ as a proxy measure for intelligence, an average group of people (say, a high school class, a council meeting), the worst 10% will have an IQ of <80 with the best 10% will have an IQ of >120.
That's the difference of 40 points, and its a common enough scenario for most people to get a feel of what it's like.
In contrast, lets say you have a room of professionals, who have been screened to be in the top 10% of the population (not a huge stretch) as a cutoff. In this scenario, you'd need 100k people in this hypothetical room to get a similarly large IQ gap.
While I think the author might be a sharp guy, and probably studied his field deeper than most, to say there's an insurmountable chasm between him and the rest of his readers might be a bit of a stretch.
But hey, if you want to sell your unique genius as your upscale consulting brand, I guess this is how you market yourself.
The word you should have used is authoritarianism, which this writer has, alas, in spades.
Your users are more important than your sense of self worth, in this industry.
Nobody ships ego. We ship working software: to users who find it valuable.
I agree that's what's most likely to bring you financial and reputational success, but I also think there are a lot of things people can and do sell that are various incarnations of snake oil, at best.
This perhaps gets a little philosophical, but: is it ethical to sell someone something they don't need, and doesn't actually help them, even if they believe they need it, and over time even believe they've been helped by it?
I think a lot of the applications of "AI" today can fall under that umbrella, given the "right" customer.
It would only be unethical to remove their agency over the decision, in my opinion.
I don't find myself conducting much authoritarianism but admittedly I do keep a pretty tight grip on the movements of my budgies. It's for their own good you see.
For me the writing felt authentic and entertaining. Emotionally charged but rightfully so. It is incredibly disturbing to see people lying with a straight face and getting insane investments.
But he's still nowhere near as unhinged as the rabid AI bullshittery shitting up the airwaves for the past year
Not a lot of room for nuance when the subject matter is this polluted. Typical HN convention of preferring nuance to outright dismissal is bad at filtering BS
I personally would stay far far away from either of these two camps.
Very true. A thread about it here is a hat on a hat.
The very sort of hypemongers and grifters the author complains about often hide unsustainable claims behind complicated language and opaque terminology, with the intent of portraying themselves as experts and making clear-headed criticism seem uneducated or uninformed in comparison.
The author here is making a deliberate choice to use a ranty tone to cut through that sort of bullshit, and in doing so, successfully expressed his frustration with the pervasive level of hype in AI discussions.
Which is a pity. The style is excellent & so wonderful, is a critical relief, after suffering through insane out of this world hype-bordering-religion. At least to me; he doesn't read as menacing, he reads as being on a justifiably distraught polemic against total madness that's allowed to pointlessly suck up all the oxygen in the room.
We should be flipping our shit (if not each other) that we have to put up with this endless exuberant schucksterism. That robs us of agency & pollutes our noosphere with inauthentic bullshitting.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40734677
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40734700
The article follows the format of sections with titles as interrupted quotes from people "mentioning AI" and the author shutting them up, let's see what amazing arguments they offer for "not talking about AI"
" "III. We've Already Seen Extensive Gains From-" When I was younger, I read R.A Salvatore's classic fantasy novel, The Crystal Shard. There is a scene in it where the young protagonist, Wulfgar, challenges a barbarian chieftain.... "
Just at a glance, we have business people on one side talking about income and how to increase it. On the other we have an enraged nerd talking about his favourite high-fantasy fake world. Gee, I wonder whose side I should be on, is this an ad for AI hype?
" Well this is me. Begging you. To stop lying. I don't want to crush your skull, I really don't.
But I will if you make me."
... Is OP threatening us?
I say this unironically now OP, this sounds like schizophrenic, I won't suggest you "take your meds", but at least consult a psychiatrist if you haven't already.
They sure are spending a lot of money on graphics cards!
>Just Use Postgres, You Nerd. You Dweeb.
I'm really sick and tired of kids coming in and shitting on what we had to do to search a tb worth of data in 2009 (or 2004).
A computer in 2019 (or 2024) has enough power to run postgress queries to extract statistics from columns.
Yeah, great.
Now try running that stack on an iphone 7 and report your results back. We didn't create all that complexity for shits and giggles, we did it because it was at the edge of what was possible and the companies that got it right made billions.
Why?
Mostly the world has to sit back and suffer for this clown car of over enthused business types promising us that their AI will make all our lives better. Mostly the world has to let this weirdly quasi-cultish hype run unchecked.
I'm frelling pissed about it. I frelling miss personal computing being an aspiration; I wish we were actually improving systems. Instead we're investing billions to make machines good bullshitters. It's enormously relieving seeing such rancorous disgust on display here.