nobodywillobsrv

Regardless of whether this is true or not you have basically described the UK and how people think about a Russian invasion.

You already have elites siding against their own people and tyrannically collecting taxes and giving it to their Mercenary base.

It isn't hard to imagine a benevolent Sea People offering to free the locals from their despotic elite.

The Bronze Age would not have had the same migration structures obviously but one might imagine it happening locally.

What is funny is that a lot of these explanations of what happened seem to fly in the face of what people find is possible to ascribe to situations now.

I think a journey with multiple agents to collect information would give you a more complete picture on data points.

Ask for DNA and what is known.

Climate records and what is known.

Town losses and movements. In some places inhabitants seemingly moved way way up the mountains all of a sudden. This is usually associated with conflict or tidal waves.

Migration evidence.

And any other disease or food shocks.

One must also be careful to understand the data observation process and to justify any belief that the collapse is not merely absence of observations.

Let's add latency and bill the client for literally every thought they have and every interaction with every system!

It feels a bit like how Amazon and META purposefully do not create search that can actually help you filter for exactly what you want.

There are incentives to create products that work just barely, just enough for you to use them and don't leave for elsewhere but then they want to maximize everything else like the probability you view side products or ads or just click around and type and generate more data.

Unless someone else offers something better they will offer something that is basically as bad as they can get away with so long as there are benefits to them for doing so..

Physical land is quite different. And if squatting is legal, it makes a kind of tax of ownership and also means that any registry is invalid.

If you are saying the physical house only and not the land that is different yes. Someone who can move the house obviously should still own the house. Trespassing usually doesn't invalidate ownership of all your belongings.

More important is the meta concept of like we write confusing contracts and then execute them and we agree on an end date (all transactions done) and then informally and implicitly we agree that if anything was wrong you only have z years after close date to fix it.

This is kind of thing where big people can do it themselves and other people perhaps need a regulated entity to review their docs ... Like mortgages and what not.

The interesting thing here would be if the IRS decides to have an opinion ...

A lot missing from this analysis.

Usually due to discomfort of the analysis.

It would be interesting to pull the data and control for demographics and then some kind of educational factor and social media factor

The problem is the interviewer though.

There is no fixing an interviewer who doesn't understand the answers really. You need a third party for that.

Have had weird interviews with people who don't introduce themselves and assume that I definitely am interested in whatever the job is even though I know nothing and proceed to ask questions that amount to "how does palantir work" and get irritated when the answer isn't "we used database X".

Fundamentally one needs a meta approach that handles these cases too without knowing who is interviewing who. Could an interviewee give feedback like this without sounding arrogant?

Whole this might be true, one thing that is missing is the kinds of interviews where the candidate feels like the interviewer didn't make sense or they didn't expect it to be an interview at all at that point as it was supposed to be a chat about the team and whether it was a fit at all in the first place.

It also doesn't cover the case of junior interviewers interviewing more experienced people either by accident or by design.

There are a lot of failure modes that could simply turn into useful conversations with this approach I think.

This feels frustrating.

They are comparing "same buildings" with AI but I would imagine they are not controlling cost.

Imagine gargoyles and metal dragons on drainpipes and all the ornamentation now and how much that would cost.

People prefer ancient dry stone walls over fences but they cost orders of magnitude differently.

I wonder if with robots and what not if we will see a resurgence in detail and ornamentation and other kinds of expensive but nice constructions.

But in chemical science you would not "understand" everything. You cook with ingredients where you don't fully understand then.

There are always limits.

Engineering human types are often guilty of saying something is low cost but then not doing it themselves. Great, "understand everything".

Trust us trust. You trust an entity. What the author is describing is a new kind of transaction. It's not that AI causes people to lie suddenly (although if you trusted the wrong people this might happen to you, but YOU were wrong then) but now you have a lot of work being done more at the edge of uncertainty and recommendations. Ideas are not ideas anymore, they are working implementations.

So instead of submitting discussions or requests for features, you literally submit implemented features because the cost is lower. This is good. You just have to realize that you are starting the discussion with a working implementation. If you continually try to act like this is not the case, without someone literally lying to you about it, this is more about just accepting a now workflow.

This is the kind of writing that I assume the people who read the NYT or Atlantic enjoy.

The content is good but yes it's like there is a different class of people that really want to FEEL like they are reading. They are doing THE WORK.

The real annoying thing it seems is mostly that openai is presumably doing this for internal reasons and this marginally increases the cost to users with no real gain.

It would be one thing to gain from it but removing prestige wins from customers AND reducing compute support just feels like being ultra mean if you zoom out.

If this was racing to cure cancer ahead of researchers we wouldn't be writing about this on HN.

I see this response a lot. What part of the thinking are you thinking is actually offloaded?

Writing things down and then arguing with an agent that constantly gets things wrong is just a new kind of Rubber Duck.

Are Rubber Ducks offloading thinking?

These are more like search plus memory tools.

Memory loss is real but that has been happening for me way before agents.

It's funny to read HN comments where people can sort of describe the problems but can't really describe the problems

Good story and the classic problem with nearly all betting markets having viaticals embedded

Seems causally false.

Markets solve this by pricing risk. Ideally you would have some kind of notion of selling insurance internally and track things. But ultimately existential risk is hard to negotiate from the inside. And companies are supposed to go bust or succeed. They are not really the same as a population trying to survive forever. At least that is one take.

I have many projects going, many tmux sessions, but I also found I don't resonate with the post either. Yes, there are times I use AI and it doesn't go anywhere and wasn't necessary but I don't think I can always know that ahead of time. The point is the overall pattern and the actual of useful work.

I am much more able to use fragmented bits of time now. Whereas before if I had 20 minutes here and there I would not be able to even read code or notes in order to get context enough to make a change let alone do real work.

I suspect personality matters. Often in discussions with AI or anyone I tend to take opiate position and constantly challenge and dig in. I don't go with the flow. With people this can be problematic. With AI it merely takes more time but probably a avoids some pitfalls.

Yes. This is basically true but unclear the causal link to the true problems.

This seems to misrepresent what incentives are: latent unobservable things. Incentives are not what you or anyone else says they are. It makes sense to simply state the incentives in academic games which are of course useful at times.

So the author is making some point about wrong incentive models and meta models.

I've noticed while not really looking but taking some chats that turn into interviews is that the job market seems covered with spam, semi scams, weird processes and teams and people that are living in the dark ages still in terms of AI and how they do interviews.

Never have I had such poor matching and triage as I have over the last 6 months.

It's truly bizarre. I get the feeling that some of the humans left in companies are gatekeeping on some kind of guess my password game.

A common pattern is a company will reach out and see if you want to chat and then suddenly act as if you are interested and give you a weird interview before you even get a sense of it's a good match.

It feels like this might be that less competent teams are relying on less competent recruiters or AI recruiting? Just a guess. Also finding that the AI recruiters are sounding nice but doing very little work in the end.

H2H still largely unsolved. DM if anyone is also interested in h2h reco in age of ai

Stop calling it social media.

Call it something like the matrix.

Isolating specialized customized algorithms tube to be addicted to specifically you and tuned to keep you away from other humans forever.

Instead of identity barriers like in the UK they should simply ban "accounts".

Regulators should say: ok you can serve kids and women and whoever else but you have to creat 20 channels and you can't differentiate and everyone just picks a username that isn't protected and they shout into the group chat and nobody knows who anyone is except the provider and everyone sees the same thing.

Ok this is an exaggeration to make the point.

We can't even see what other people are being shown.

You can't even opt out of being secretly show things.

It's evil.

I want a feed that is 100% public. Every single thing they show me is shown to everyone. Like radio or something.

Feels like it would be a good time for freenet and the like to catch on.

Letting AI write for you is the main purpose though.

It should always have been trained on "is this more readable for humans" but as a actual tested thing.

The next level up is the payoff, the incentives like taleb tripe

Whild I hate the idea of a zillionaire tax, and I largely think good allocators should allocate, I also recognize that simply pricing things and allowing them to be bought is unstable in many cases.

If you can use it to take over a country it must be stopped.

Why not tax the gov though? "Nobody should have that much control" means you must first have limited government and some mechanism to stop unstable governance dynamics which allow for capture. Currently it seems like billionaires are one way to stop that.

This makes me feel like an alien.

I feel perfectly happy sorting by worst taking the top K and then understanding what can be mitigated etc

Not doing this is immoral IMO.

But I hear and understand certain kinds of people who say they can't deal with hearing about anything remotely unpleasant.

But then these same kinds of people seem to enjoy the kinds of horror or thriller movies I detest.

I feel alone and like an alien.

Yes. People are gatekeeping. They are not interviewing with the aim of having an interesting conversation. They are trying to block hiring.

Interviews, all of them, should be working on problem with and agent and a human interviewer.

Just had a "guess the teachers password" moment at some interview as a senior and the interviewer didn't understand my answer and didn't ask questions.

The problem is incentives. A lot of people probably need to be fired who are gate keeping by blocking hiring.

All interviews should be bilateral win win recommendation chats.

They should not end because one person didn't understand the other or someone who was not yet interested in the job did g remember some weird detail of something.

Our memories are getting worse with AI and augmentation.

We need to judge marginal add and make recommendations.