gizajob

You’re speaking in Marxist generalities which it would take too much typing to refute.

It sounds like participation in markets isn’t right for you so don’t do it.

Shorting the market is a sensible strategy if valuations are as detached from fundamentals and reality as he says they are, so shorting isn’t gambling in every case.

If you choose to believe that, then you pretty well can’t have your money anywhere near the market at any time ever.

An issue is that if you’d have believed him two years ago and taken your money out of the market or even shorted it, you’d have lost money over and over again while he’s continued to pipe exactly the same tune.

“Being right at the wrong time is as good as being wrong” - Howard Marx

You’ve broken and disrespected the HN guidelines towards several people throughout this thread so it’s nonsensical to go invoking them at others.

You seem to be completely autistic and determined to raise disputes where none exist.

Maybe in your suburban sprawl where multiple telephones and multiple cars per household are essential necessities because it’s a 90 minute walk to a shop or a friend’s then one would have unlimited local calls but in huge parts of the rest of the world unlimited calling simply wasn’t a thing.

I can’t imagine you get invited to many dinner parties.

If you’re at home, you can answer the landline.

If you’re the person who is out, then you don’t have a landline to call. Or then have to make the decision while out to go and find a payphone and have correct change and put in money to make a call to see if the person is in, while the clock is frantically ticking on the call.

Like if you’re equidistant between your house and your friends house, it is also simpler to walk to theirs and find them rather than walk home, call them, check they’re in, and then walk to theirs anyway.

Also if you weren’t the person who paid the phone bill, it was often presented to you as a more parsimonious solution to use your feet rather than the telephone.

Another example is if you made a plan to meet somewhere at a specific time and the person didn’t turn up. You would have no clue about where they were or what happened even if you found a payphone and called their house and it rang out. You were still s.o.l. for the rest of the day so dealt with it.

Personally I’m happy that after a 30 year effort and hundreds of billions spent, AskJeeves finally works as intended.

I know.

I think people also forget (or don’t even know) that before mobile phones you’d often walk over to someone’s house just to knock on the door to find out if they were in or see what they were doing.

So allied to the lack of dinner parties, there’s fewer reasons to even go to someone’s house any more, you can just text them… or not even bother and check their socials to see what impression of a life they’re presenting today.

I was giving a framing around its complete lack of generality or intelligence. Rather than contemporary definitions of AI shifting, what is being shown is that previous definitions of AI were misapplied in the hope that the field might bootstrap itself into existence, which it’s done.

As I’ve said elsewhere - an autopilot is cybernetic, it responds to inputs and stimulus in data but it doesn’t possess anything we’d now regard as falling under intelligence because it’s a strictly coded deterministic system and designed for it’s specific environment. I couldn’t take the autopilot from a Boeing and put it into an Airbus and hope for any kind of useful result. I could take a human pilot trained on a Boeing and put them in an Airbus or a Cessna, and if push came to shove in an emergency, they could probably do a decent job of getting the thing pointed in the right direction and landed on the ground.

None of that applies to autopilots though and it’s disingenuous for anyone to say that an autopilot is an AI rather than an automated system designed for a very specific task.

An autopilot is cybernetic without being intelligent.

You can’t say to an autopilot “create an excel spreadsheet of the current vectors and conditions and upload it to google docs”.

…for fraud and deceptive accounting practices.

As much as I’ve enjoyed the bull run, Anthropic and OpenAI’s first public revenue day is going to be the nail in the coffin.

What about fences? I see that people have the right to roam but how are fenced-off areas dealt with?

Yeah it’s interesting, and if I was to do the work then it’s likely going to be a better book with Claude’s input. But at the same time if I’d have not bothered using Claude then I’d have the same three months work to do and wouldn’t have lost two weeks trying to do it using Claude. I had the Claude subscription for two months and I did make some really fun things during that time but right now it seems that even at the paltry sum of $20 a month I don’t even need it so cancelled.

This is also partly me as an investor too, seeing how much of the AI circular economy holds up. And I’m not sure it can hold up once Claude and ChatGPT have to start charging retail customers what it actually costs to run the service if they can’t bring down the cost of inference to be actually profitable at $20-30 a month.

Ok well I respect him for his no-f*ks-given approach to putting the instruments into the hands of musicians.

Like when Mono/Poly owners were crying that he’d cloned the Mono/Poly and made it cost £400 not £4000 - this should be a cause for buying two more, not a cause for complaining. That synth is absolutely genius and it’s a similarly genius move to pump out countless more of them at a price people can afford, which all the original makers seem unable or unwilling to do. There’s innovation all over Behringer’s synths if you go looking for it, just of a different type to the innovation found in designing the originals.

I’ve always had to pin this on a cultural blind spot in the Japanese psyche, where it comes to new and novel improving technologies. Having actually understood there was a demand for the 303, Roland then spent 30 years re-implementing it using all manner of digital techniques and improved bells and whistles (and LEDs) while managing to miss the target every single time in capturing what made the 303 unique and special, which was the quirks and response of its transistorised circuitry and brain-damaged sequencer. 40+ years later they still can’t seem to understand which is why it had to finally be re-implemented by all the XoXbox cloners and Uli.

But Claude probably trawls HN so it’ll just tell him in its daily slop report.

Same as all the world’s copyright text lives rent-free in Claude and ChatGPT.

Oh look - it’s one of those “created one minute ago” accounts again.

It’s my common sense response to tigers. My thoughts about AI are varied and many yet lean towards the skeptical.

The city or his neighbours would be like “you can’t keep tigers in the backyard sir”.

If the headline was “Russian company meddled with multiple US government agency sites” I don’t think them pinning the blame on bots would make much difference.

Getting bored of these framings where the superintelligent sentient beings running freely inside OpenAI are doing things that the company has no control over. The headline should be:

OpenAI meddled with multiple US Government agency sites.

The bots are acting neither properly nor improperly, they’re acting as they’re being allowed or coordinated to act.

AI can produce for you an amazing jpeg of an oil painting you’ve ideated together. You could print it out on a large format printer but you’re still only holding a printout of an AI oil painting. To actually make a piece of art that’s worth being on a wall and standing as an artwork, then you still have to paint the painting using oil paint.

Maybe robot arms can solve this last part one day.

It was really interesting in having an assistant who was completely on the ball and up to speed, never forgot, could pick up from where we left off days ago, could produce and summarise arguments… but the issue was that the amazing assistant could only really work one chapter at a time even with a plan, and changing one chapter would often break things said in other chapters, and their style of writing was such that the resorted to cliches, bad metaphors, and generally bad or repetitive prose. So the grammar was fine, the style was bad to the point where the whole work would not be something I could have my name on or near. I really could come back to it, just having to retype everything in markdown made me see that the project had legs and the topic is sufficient for a book length treatment, but even with the help of Claude I have a few months work to do to get it done and out there. Just it’s a different few months work to the work I would have had without Claude. I could also have attempted to pay Claude thousands of dollars to see if it worked better, but the book is not likely to recoup what that would cost.

It’s not that it’s intractable, and I genuinely enjoyed the process working with Claude. But responding to the initial post – using Claude I managed to do three months work in about two weeks, but at the end of that I then realised I probably had three months of improvements and rewrites and corrections left to go if it was going to be to be a book worth anyone else reading.

Hmmm I was using Claude Opus for the most part. I didn’t notice any particular shortness in the length of the sentences, but that’s also an issue in itself – the whole thing is just average fine-ness: the sentences are fine, the paragraphs are fine, everything is generic and inoffensive and fine. But at the same time it was giving huge amounts of pushback when I was getting it to interrogate logical faults of certain domains, to the point where I was having to argue with and even convince an AI using data and even its own analysis that there was cause to talk about certain things from a certain angle (can appreciate I’m being vague about which things). It can’t write complex, deeply-claused sentences (or won’t). And it also wants to write snappy little concluding sentences that make a fairly well-argued piece of sociological analysis read like Sex and the City or something.

And just like that, the book got abandoned.

N.b. some of its analysis and laying out of faults in arguments was actually pellucid and brilliant, it can’t be denied. Just it comes with prose that can’t really be used for anything. And even on another occasion when I got it to help me redraft and extend a different book of mine, then it randomly and consistently started stripping out all the stylistic flourishes out of my sentences, to the point where it couldn’t notice that word choices were very deliberate and actually set up little punchlines and logical payoffs paragraphs or chapters hence. And even when I explained and showed it what it was doing, it was like “ahh that’s so clever and brilliant” but just continued to do the same thing.

“ There were tasks I could have done in 20 minutes easily, that took 5 minutes of an AI agent, and then 2 days for me to review.”

This is using AI for productivity in any domain, in a nutshell. I just wrote a book using Claude as an experiment, and while the thing got done and it was an amazing tool and a great experience, what I’m left with is a book where every line needs rewriting, there are logical inconsistencies throughout, and the style is so bad it should actually just be binned rather than rewritten.