The assumption that all critics of the author are operating from equal levels of effort aside, there's an interesting error in the article:
> I think who owns the robots is going to be a key aspect of what the future looks like. And I don’t mean “owns” from a legalist perspective, I mean “owns” as in the hacker meaning, like “owning” the box. Who has root?
This is a very bizarre point compared to the author's more cogent comment on the same topic yesterday:
> GPT$$$ is surely smart enough to separate you from whatever you have, be that with targeting advertising, a scam you fall for, or lobbying your government to take it from you.
.
Given that any AI product that is made can be parallelized and coordinated faster than any human organisation using productivity software that already exists, either the brainpower is sufficient that we get an Accelerando-esque displacement where all power relations favouring humans vanish or the AI tech hits some kind of brainpower ceiling that makes it incapable of competing with humans and we don't even get viable robotic blue-collar replacements.
I clicked on the link expecting information on how to shed big tech's golden handcuffs. Instead of that, I was assaulted with a bunch of barely coherent bragging about the author's career and sex life.
There is an obvious pattern of very smart people such as the author and what they do.
They do not care about the place they have worked at or the college they went to. They just build startups.
In contrast, you can see what happens when (outside of research) market forces is now not in favour of knowledge workers and now ignores the college candidates go to and they end up on this site [0] or /r/cscareerquestions.
It in fact, favours those who build startups, Hence the answer to the above question to stop participating:
> I started two companies, comma.ai and tiny corp.
Both companies are in robotics, which is the next wave of the tech industry.
So if you want >500k+ income or at least a way to stand out, you might as well build a (profitable) startup as I said before [1] (probably in robotics) with no need to raise more money (unless you have a very good reason).
Instead of going through the interview loop scam with thousands of others, getting low-balled for <100k which half is taxed from you anyway and risk getting laid-off if you ask for a promotion (which comes with extra cons).
The amount of hate (used in the sense that it seems people online use) here is amusing. All he is saying is build things you want to see in this world. Implicit in his argument is the view that the majority in US tech are building what the elite demand, and his previous article outlines his view of this as a certain path to techno-feudalism, which I think is a reasonable extrapolation. The dissenters (aka haters) simply believe their 996 code-monkeyry will be rewarded when this future is realized.
A little rambly, but his point is gold: clearly question what you are doing in tech. Are you building toward a better future for everyone, or are you building products of oppresion and despair?
If you're not building something that solves real problems for people, you're going to experience a time in your life you'll regret it. You likely will have to start your own company if you want to choose what problems you're working on yourself.
11 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 28.0 ms ] thread> I think who owns the robots is going to be a key aspect of what the future looks like. And I don’t mean “owns” from a legalist perspective, I mean “owns” as in the hacker meaning, like “owning” the box. Who has root?
This is a very bizarre point compared to the author's more cogent comment on the same topic yesterday:
> GPT$$$ is surely smart enough to separate you from whatever you have, be that with targeting advertising, a scam you fall for, or lobbying your government to take it from you.
.
Given that any AI product that is made can be parallelized and coordinated faster than any human organisation using productivity software that already exists, either the brainpower is sufficient that we get an Accelerando-esque displacement where all power relations favouring humans vanish or the AI tech hits some kind of brainpower ceiling that makes it incapable of competing with humans and we don't even get viable robotic blue-collar replacements.
There is no in-between.
1/5 would not click again.
They do not care about the place they have worked at or the college they went to. They just build startups.
In contrast, you can see what happens when (outside of research) market forces is now not in favour of knowledge workers and now ignores the college candidates go to and they end up on this site [0] or /r/cscareerquestions.
It in fact, favours those who build startups, Hence the answer to the above question to stop participating:
> I started two companies, comma.ai and tiny corp.
Both companies are in robotics, which is the next wave of the tech industry.
So if you want >500k+ income or at least a way to stand out, you might as well build a (profitable) startup as I said before [1] (probably in robotics) with no need to raise more money (unless you have a very good reason).
Instead of going through the interview loop scam with thousands of others, getting low-balled for <100k which half is taxed from you anyway and risk getting laid-off if you ask for a promotion (which comes with extra cons).
That should be clearly obvious by now.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46615137
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46615295
How fucking naive.
deliberately ignoring the range of variation in experience and outcomes
> If you think you can somehow just buy safety for yourself, you are both wrong and pathetic.
most active tech development is on a fringe, far from any real safety and well beyond the range of casual certainty
If you're not building something that solves real problems for people, you're going to experience a time in your life you'll regret it. You likely will have to start your own company if you want to choose what problems you're working on yourself.