No comment on the ethics; however, I think when people's instincts to survive kick in, many of these larger goals get sidelined.
There's a growing belief that it's now or never as far as accumulating wealth, securing a house, etc. go because people think once AGI comes their chances of having the lives they want will diminish. The bay area has only gotten more expensive to live in, and that's where all of the AI folks are, so no surprise.
I think in general, if it were cheaper to live, we would see a shift in priorities, what people focus on, etc. More art, less grift.
Genuinely good people get caught up in rat races trying to reach their ceiling while they can. If they didn't feel that pressure, maybe they'd be doing something else.
For relatively straightforward groups whose tasks are self explanatory and/or isolated, sure. For any kind of invention, however, I don't think this line of thought works. Alan Kay has said in a number of places that Xerox PARC (likely) couldn't have worked if they had been remote, nor could it have worked if they hadn't had the time they did to goof off, argue, share hypotheticals, etc. Developing a shared intuition and connection with others in your group is an immeasurable quality that doesn't get enough love.
In other words, if your organization is made up of a bunch of geese that lay golden eggs, by all means let them lay eggs, but don't ignore the fact that your organization could itself be a goose that lays golden eggs together.
Product seems like it could be neat, and around 0:34 of the demo video I thought I understood what it was, but after that I was confused again. Does it translate a question/wish into a set of questions?
Is it just "I have a question, go find the answer(s), even if it means asking other people"?
They aren't trying to "gain traction" right now. They are nurturing a beautiful little flame of a vision and documenting it for the world to learn from, and possibly be inspired by, along the way -- someday it will be more publicly available, but for now it functions, to the general public, more as art than utility.
The typical themes of things that get posted on HN are not compatible with this idea, which is why it comes across so jarringly to many. They aren't selling, prescribing, recruiting, etc. They are sharing a vision, and to deeply understand and appreciate the vision you have to get your hands dirty and do some digging into what they've prepared for us to see thus far.
For those criticizing, think of this updated website more from the lens of art, less pragmatics. The Doug Engelbart "Mother of All Demos" functioned in this way as well. Can you imagine scoffing at Engelbart in the same way? There are quite a few deep ideas in this presentation of Dynamicland, many of which are subtle and take some effort to find and appreciate, much like art.
Yes, it is intended to be useful to many one day, and they claim it "actually works" _now_, but if you read carefully (and you should!), they are trying very hard to maintain (and gradually grow) a beautiful little flame of a vision. PARC, on the other hand, had 10 years. Afterwards, industry ran with the ideas they wanted, and Alan Kay has been beating the "you missed the big ideas!" drum since. The Dynamicland group is trying to learn from this lesson of history.
A number of the side effects listed here are also known to happen on the "waking up" journey. Tinnitus, for example, is a thing we all have that our brain filters out for the most part. Depersonalization is an obvious (and sought after) side effect of "waking up" as well.
These side effects can be scary to someone that doesn't anticipate them (or just doesn't want them), but the "benefits" of LSD often point to the loosening of your sense of self, seeing unfiltered reality, etc.
TLDR: these side effects can be seen as good in the right context.
Article's points shouldn't be taken as seriously as the general message: be just as aware of the invisible, negative forces that hinder employees as you are of the positive forces which stellar employees bring. Yin and yang.
Important to note that there are also 10x environments that make everyone in them 10x as effective.
I think the post is a bit misleading (e.g. "for everybody" makes it sound like "everybody" can do something about this right now), but I think this comment misses the point of the protocol.
This is (I think) supposed to be a shared language between note-taking apps (and eventually others that include "thoughts" I presume). The hopes are that it does "affect everybody," but it is not something that can "affect everybody" without "apps" speaking in this shared language.
If you are not somebody who works on these kinds of things, then yea, probably useless to you for now. I think the author wants interoperability at the "thought" level between apps that support users inputting their ideas.
> You get what data structures made of links truly are: the triviality of a single node that becomes a lot more powerful and complex once it references another one.
I don't think beginners actually make this connection for a while. Linked Lists are introduced analogously to arrays, sets, etc. Beginners think about Linked Lists in terms of what they already know.
As a beginner, I thought of Linked Lists purely as non-contiguous arrays, even though there are deeper concepts behind them.
Unless the beginners already have the perspective of "same having the power as the whole", I don't think this connection gets made for a while. Linked Lists don't expose so much possibility on their own.
> Why do people keep working and earning more when they are set for life--what actual practical purpose does megawealth serve once you've guaranteed your standard of living for you and your offspring?
I think this is the wrong question to ask -- "what end is this a means to anymore". One of the largest challenges in life is pursuit of meaning, and Zuck has, at least he thinks, found it. He still has consequences, but they are higher up on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
You could argue that those in charge should have enough at stake to feel the burn of a layoff like this, but this issue isn't dissimilar to biology. We often make local (and temporary) sacrifices on behalf our own bodies, knowing "we" will still be around afterwards to enjoy life and the removed parts won't (removing limbs, wiping out blood cells, organ removal, etc.). This isn't 1:1 with Zuck, because Zuck is more than just his role in Meta, but close enough.
Why is this pricing surprising (or bad)? Certain groups of people pay more (or less) for certain products, and the market reflects that.
The alternative being proposed sounds much worse: price control (based on ingredients?)? Not all products are mere sums of their parts, and some people prefer the premium experience regardless of the differences.
They aren't literally charging based on gender - but different brands targeted towards different genders offer different prices and experiences. If the products really are that similar, the other gender can buy the other gender's product no problem.
More of a passive idea, but you could add potential customers on linkedin and wait until they mention anything related to what you do, then reach out via linkedin. Less pushy (you will need to still be doing the pushy kind of sales), more thoughtful, and has worked for a number of sales people I know in different industries.
I think in general, if it were cheaper to live, we would see a shift in priorities, what people focus on, etc. More art, less grift.
Genuinely good people get caught up in rat races trying to reach their ceiling while they can. If they didn't feel that pressure, maybe they'd be doing something else.