lanfeust6

"Write as much as you can" is a more crucial piece. Reading is of course important for forming taste.

Anecdotally there are musicians who in interviews report saying they "don't listen to much (other people's) music anymore". Well, that always shows. They get self-referential and repetitive.

Having "difficulty, lack of motivation and concentration" for reading, but not for writing, doesn't make sense to me. It's far more arduous, and in the first place you have to re-read what you wrote unless you're throwing a stream of consciousness straight into the void/dumpster.

No, it isn't - https://www.effectivealtruism.org/

Says so right there. If you want to argue otherwise, provide a source. As it stands you're just making things up.

> Effective Altruism is in of itself a philosophy developed by charlatans that refuse to engage in the tradition that preceded it by about 2500 years.

You're not communicating anything of substance, and I expect you can't. If there's a problem with EA in itself, it should be pretty damn easy to coherently point it out. There's nothing complicated about it: a) they value charity, b) they value maximal efficacy from a charitable dollar, c) they value taking the time to understand the impacts of various charities and prioritizing what matters to you

I'm not sure what "tradition" you're alluding to here, but if you plainly mean charity-giving and volunteering, the opposite is true. They give, while the average person doesn't.

I have a feeling you find it uncomfortable to confront some of these questions, and so it just feels better to make EA out to be some boogeyman. That way you can content yourself with not changing your habits. Am I getting warm?

You're projecting. EAs are people interested in EA. That there might be overlap with some "transhumanists" (which is no crime as far as anyone is concerned) has no bearing.

Tautologically, libertarian "propaganda" would be pushed by libertarian ideologues. You've revealed that you're conflating libertarian and "capitalist", so I take it that through your interpretation, any remotely pro-market sentiment is "libertarian propaganda" (like plain ol' Liberalism, or, suggesting that zoning reform i.e. the govt getting out of it's own way can improve housing affordability). After all, no one comes out and says "this is propaganda", and you're telegraphing your yardstick.

> Preventing movement from the status quo in a non-libertarian direction.

The fact that you think the status quo is somehow in line with libertarian ideology, as I helpfully hinted at, tells me you have no clue what you're talking about. Developed countries broadly exercise a Liberal democracy with mixed-market economy and substantial government spending and intervention, which has mostly gone up over time. That's something libertarians whine about, not boast about.

charitable giving is good, and aiming for efficacy from our charitable dollars is good.

If you know anything about libertarian cranks, this doesn't make any sense and smacks of projection. They're not "satisfied with the status quo" qua political structure or economy.

There's a value in gratitude and recognizing widespread improvements in QoL, in large part fuelled by growth in the past century, and taking advantage of state capacity. That's not tantamount to saying there are no issues today, let alone that you shouldn't care. You can at least criticize accurately and take things at face value.

LLMs help me refine my search. If I want to dive deeper into any topic, I can yield a strong list of primary sources relatively quickly.

Look at household income adjusted for PPP, that gives a more accurate global ranking in that respect (20s-30s). I expect this has improved as well.

Know what's way easier? Writing in a companion notebook next your book, with as much space as you need.

Seconding that the time you get up, and light exposure then and during the day, has a massive impact. If you habitually sleep in late, then "going to bed early" does not work as you'll lack sleep pressure. It's putting the cart before the horse. You have to treat it the same way we do jet lag; when we travel to the other side of the world, we adjust by just gritting through the morning. Takes few days to shift.

This is a shifted circadian rhythm. If you get up late, you'll be sleepy late; additionally, blue-light exposure at night (from screens) suppresses melatonin production and can delay onset. The fix isn't to "go to bed early" first, it's to get up early and get exposure to sunlight then and during the day, and the sleep pressure in the evening will follow in kind. This is further facilitated by giving yourself time in the evening to wind-down away from screens, by having a ritual/routine (an hour at least) such as preparing breakfast, reading, doing yoga, whatever.

Think of it like jet lag. If you travel to the other side of the world, you rapidly shift schedule in accordance with your habits (the timing of your meals, light exposure, activity, socializing etc), whether that be night or day. These inputs more than ever influence morning-ness or evening-ness qua chronotype, with the advent of limitless evening light and entertainment.

All I had to do to read more was reserve time specifically for it. On week days that will be late evening, on the weekend I can sneak in extra time in the am. I haven't had to "block" anything, but I don't use my phone for much, just my laptop.

I read more than ever, but Substack is taking a sizable share of the pie whereas lit and non-fiction is now my late evening. I don't do the audiobook thing, though I understand that has become increasingly popular yet not really given much credence.

Desire might be theoretically limitless, but time and attention is not. Time I spend reading is time I'm not consuming endless short-form videos. People have gotten hooked on phones and the medium dictates what they consume.

There could be boom and bust cycles for this. Trends lose lustre and people are always looking for ways to signal status/competence. It's probably why "booktok" is a thing.

Employers care about credentialization, a lot. And not just from elite universities based on wage data. Diplomas are a signal that you're conscientious enough to grit through large amounts of dull lectures, work and cramming, and that you're probably able to grasp some abstract concepts. You're underselling their value.

> Learning by doing and building a portfolio sounds like a better way of getting in the industry today than getting a multi-year degree with nothing or little to show for it.

Graduates do this too. The industry has gotten highly competitive. So who do you think employers would rather hire, a CS grad with a portfolio or high school grad with a portfolio? It takes a lot more for apps to impress today, in no small part because LLMs expedite the process.

Going so far as to as to found a company might be necessary if the goal is to work at a FAANG co or whatever, but most developers don't work there.

I think this type of projection is problematic and regressive. Insights that research provides are a net positive.

The major blocker for manual labor automation in that fashion is cheap energy. China is ahead of the pack with the States' weight behind aggressive expansion of solar tech, and still can't do that.

Ostensibly, due-diligence should not change. But people are lazy, just as they've always been around testing/QA/definition-of-done.

I'm not even certain that laziness gets them further along than it used to; I think it's that people have not had their overconfidence painfully corrected yet. Behaviors will re-align pretty fast when people realize that no, they're not going to get away with just pressing a button and saying everything is "good". That is happening right now.

progressive with a throwaway account: "We can't expect BIPOC people to pass SATs, because of reasons". The reason is racism.

The evidence shows the opposite, SAT testing allows hardworking/gifted minorities to get ahead.

I've yet to see anything substantiating these anecdotes.

and other forms of multi-media before that.

> instead of

Citation needed. People did not stop talking to family, friends and colleagues just because they're able to leverage LLMs.

You could make the same argument for the internet pre-LLM; it could be relied upon over immediate connections. It's also reminiscent of Socrates's skepticism of written text over oral tradition.

Speeches haven't gone away, videos are more popular than ever, and consulting within our social circle will continue on.

I think there's something to be said about there being an isolationist phenomenon in society that might be contributing in part to low fertility, but that significantly pre-dates LLMs. It's easy and convenient for us to be alone - people create friction. We've been entertained by the TV set for a century now. That said, we remain social creatures and enduringly have a need to be with others, at least to some extent.

They should, but they (some) don't. As with most things, it's more attributable to ignorance than malice. Not much I want to do with what this "tells" me.

Norms surrounding the use of LLMs are in the process of being established, it's a new frontier. Many people rely on these signals over common sense. The feedback loop will lead to corrections in time, for now people are sussing out where the boundaries of appropriate-use are. Corp/gov policy is still lagging as well.

Growing pains. We haven't yet established norms surrounding use of LLMs, and people are lazy. We will have to learn from mistakes first, unfortunately. In this case that means diminishing trust.

Per learning from others after encountering an unfamiliar problem, I think there are rose-tinted glasses here. 90%+ of the time, either someone else had already provided the relevant answer at Stack Overflow or I could find it on a documentation page, a blog. There is no social engagement then. Just search. That also hasn't gone away, as LLMs can also provide sources to justify their answers.

Per the human element, the author is in part relaying about formative experiences from youth that you won't easily repeat, and also experiences that are not decoupled from the work as it still exists, unless you are entirely remote, which is not a LLM-specific problem.

All of which to say, the emotional element behind it is valid, but the diagnosis is off the mark. I think the human element, should it be jeopardized, is in part through the complacent convenience of remote work and disinterest in community participation. But, communities still exist, and tech communities historically were always niche. As it stands they're probably bigger now than they ever were.

There are still new frontiers with software where LLMs will be less effective. Yes, there is less friction than before for learning technologies, but all this does is move the goalpost as we can accomplish more with our time.

Instead of hacking things out through trial and error on mature stacks (with or without others), you'll be closer to the cutting edge and have different problems. Many of which will still be technological in nature.

I think there's something to this. For gentiles especially, Christianity was more attractive and life-affirming than what they had, as long-suffering subjects of the Roman Empire with little to hope for. Notwithstanding the enduring core messaging, the allure might have shifted over time between some components as quality of life improved (for instance I think the role of 'sin' and 'salvation' qua deliverance from guilt became more significant later for adherents, where earlier on the "afterlife" sells itself when life is shit).

In terms of sheer numbers, or percentage of population?

That is one important aspect, but there are several to my mind

- Life in the bronze age was very rough, and quality of life in cities was basically inhumane. Women were highly represented among earliest converts, as Christianity comparatively was rather progressive and demanded baseline respect for them. Also, pagan religions of the time, despite cultural significance, didn't promise much of a payoff for plebeians for all their toil. Conversion was easy after Paul pushed the case that they shouldn't have to convert to Judaism, with all that would entail.

- Especially in the early days, this was very much a pacifist religion, in addition to having an apocalyptic fixation. To Rome, "Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's" is a handy sentiment for the populace to have. They fought and won several uprisings just from the Jews who wanted their independence (and expected their forthcoming Savior would literally help deliver this), and the vast empire was beginning it's slow decline. Killing Christians and making martyrs out of them didn't make much sense in the long-run.

- There is a magic sauce in universalizing, it extends the shared culture within territories and makes it easier to convince people to wage war for you. Prior, the motivators were mainly tribal/blood connections, and money.

The Jews for their part were content with what they had, Christianity didn't provide much value-added, especially for the "zealots" who were ready to die for freedom. The "Love-thy-neighbor" sentiment is sort of similar to parts of Leviticus, but the cranked up pacifism and relaxed outlook over some rules was a departure. I think the "afterlife" bit was a lot more persuasive for gentiles. Then of course the rituals and conception in the collective consciousness evolved over time, from influences like Augustine and others.

By the time there was a true Christendom, powers that be dropped the (absolute) significance of pacifism, as that was no longer as useful as it was.