Is this what we are reduced to now, to snap back with a wannabe-witty remark just because you don't like how an idea sounds? Have we completely forgotten and given up on good-faith scientific discourse? Even on HN?
I think what comment-OP above means to point at is - given what we know (or, lack thereof) about awareness, consciousness, intelligence, and the likes, let alone the human experience of it all, today, we do not have a way to scientifically rule out the possibility that LLMs aren't potentially self-aware/conscious entities of their own; even before we start arguing about their "intelligence", whatever that may be understood of as.
What we do know and have so far, across and cross disciplines, and also from the fact that neural nets are modeled after what we've learned about the human brain, is, it isn't an impossibility to propose that LLMs _could_ be more than just "token prediction machines". There can be 10000 ways of arguing how they are indeed simply that, but there also are a few of ways of arguing that they could be more than what they seem. We can talk about probabilities, but not make a definitive case one way or the other yet, scientifically speaking. That's worth not ignoring or dismissing the few.
IMO, that's a common misconception. The fact that it seems this way can be attributed misunderstanding, bias in data, and perhaps a poor treatment choice. Sometimes, it's also the best healthcare can do for now.
Medical interventions for mental health issues aren't a forever-crutch. Plenty of people do taper off/change something about their prescriptions after a certain point, but we rarely ever hear those stories. What we do hear is plenty of people getting on meds/being on meds for a long time, which can bias us and make us think that most people who get on meds are on it for life.
Under-nourishment/malnutrition, traumatic incidents/events, genetics, societal conditions, bullying and abuse, and so many things are also all brain altering. Why do we not consider them so and turn a blind eye to all that?
If you're horrified that we are in a world and society where a 7yo has been put in a position where antidepressants help them, yeah, that's understandable. If you're horrified that a kid is taking them, that the parents sought medical intervention for "just a kid", then, I'd say you're reacting to the concept of a kid on antidepressants than actually listening to the OP and their family's history and story.
Often, people react to the concept of a thing rather than the ground reality of life and its complexities of lived experience. Most people also extrapolate (in either direction) others' lived experiences based on their learnings, understandings, pasts and future ambitions. In this case especially, there's also added stigma around mental health, antidepressants and the locus of personal responsibility when it comes to mental health issues.
The _concept_ of a child on antidepressants suspends trust in parents, that's often assumed and unquestioned depending, depending on the child's age. Maybe close to 18yo? Supportive parents. 7yo? Horrible parents. I'd argue it also tends to suspend critical thinking and introduces an unshakeable bias, that a child of 7yo _never [ever]_ needs antidepressants. Why? What makes you say that? What's your evidence and reasoning?
If you feel so horrified by that, can you consider for a moment that the parents recognize the weight and gravity of this decision too? That they had to really think this through, pursue more thorough medical advice than usual, make a judgement call, and have to live through this decision throughout all their lives?
OP's response to multiple comments indicates that they did not make this decision lightly and without making sure that this was the better thing to do overall. I commend OP's openness and honesty in talking about it. It's certainly inspiring to see a parent care for their child's mental health, and not dismissing that to be "oh, the kid's just young and moody, they'll feel better tomorrow."
PS. We (as a society) are always learning more and newer things about mental health and treatments. It might look like we know a lot. Perhaps. But we also don't know so much!
It's really frustrating now that for every product/service, we have to go through the privacy policy carefully, especially when they're being written in increasingly generic verbiage. We pay for the product/service upfront or as a subscription, then a subscription for additional features, and on top of all that, agree to sell all our data and souls too. And Tech does all this blindly while gaslighting itself that "it's making the world a better place."
The worth and value of something, especially in art, is often assigned wrong in the moment. But on the axis of history, it has a life of its own.
Just 200 years ago, in a world without most of the technologies we take for granted today, art played a fundamentally representative role in stretching the boundaries of ideas, imagination, possibilities, and in extension, human cognition and social impact.
Preservation is the point. Art is made in the moment. Yeah there can be scientifically proven ways of longer-lasting / preservable mediums, inks/paints, etc. Pieces of art capture inspirations and ideas of the creators and pass that feeling along to future generations to also be inspired with new ideas for their times. They can be a snapshot of one place, at one moment in time, but they can also be timeless.
In some ways, it's the point OC makes — that it's subjective. It's a culture problem.
In our profession, our conventional approach to resolve these kinds of differences is to reduce them to a specific set of conditionally applied rules that everyone _has_ to agree on. Differences in opinions are treated as based on top of a more fundamental set of values that _have_ to be universal, modular, and distinct. Why do we do this? Because that's how we culturally approach problem-solving.
Most industries at large train and groom people to absorb structured value systems whose primary function is to promote productivity (as in, delivery of results). That value system, however, ultimately benefits capital most, not necessarily knowledge or completeness.
Roles and positions ultimately encompass and package a set of values and expectations. So, we are left with a small group of people who practiced valuing few other aspects but feel isolated and burdened with having to voluntarily take on additional work (because they really care about it), and others unnecessarily pressured to mass-adopt values and also burdened taking on what feels like additional work that only a small group of people like to care about.
In the cultural discourse, we are trying to fix minimum thresholds of some values and value systems and, correspondingly, their expectations. That is never going to be possible. In and of itself, that can be a valid ask. However, time and resources are limited, and values are a continuum. Fixing one requires compromising on another. This is where we are as a professional culture and community in the larger society today.
The Tech industry refuses to break down the role of a "software engineer/developer" further than what it is today and, consequently, refuses to further break down more complex/ambiguous values and value systems into simpler ones, thus reducing the compromises encompassed in and perceived by different sub-groups and increasing overall satisfaction of developers in the industry. Instead, we've expanded on what software developers should be responsible for, which has caused more and more people to burn out trying to meet a broader set of expectations and a diminished set of value systems with more compromises to accommodate that.
Ideally, we need an industry and a professional culture that allows for and respects niche values and acknowledges the necessity of more niche roles to focus on different parts of the larger craft of software development.
PS. As a side note, the phrasing of it in the article is unfair, which OC is pointing out too — there is a false equivalency drawn between "caring for the craft" and "stressing over minutia." This causes, in this context of having a discourse around the article, those who value and want to talk about the value of caring for the craft to be viewed and perceived as the insane weirdos who stress over the minutia that the author was referring to.
I think OP's title itself answers the question — they're wealthy, and most if not all things that he could really want in the world is a transaction away. "Constraints" are key to finding purpose and direction. There can be a right/optimal set of constraints, but when there seems to be none, any is better. Constraints forbid us from being able to have something in life (things or experiences) that we also want. When we can satisfy any want, it doesn't feel like the wants matter anymore. The very reason the want existed in the first place was because it was not something that was possible at the time.
I'd advise OP to strategize smartly, given they have enough money to last a simple and full life, save, invest, donate, and keep the transactions small; ie. not investing or donating all or a majority of wealth into one thing, instead of a little bit here and a little bit there, every now and then, gradually and slowly.
Taking it slower itself is a form of constraint. And together with keeping relationships and connections, minimizing the noise in life, and making it simpler towards enjoying the truer pleasures of their life, they can grow richer and live more luxuriously, not just in terms of wealth, but also in a safer, more secure and a cozier human experience.
People from the wealthier first-world nations enjoy more international privileges — visa-on-arrival, stress-free travel, higher rates in currency exchange, dual citizenships, better societal structures and support for assimilation into foreign cultures.
Immigrants are either fleeing persecution or leaving their countries seeking a better life, requirements for visas and security checks, usually with not enough money, little privilege, and defacto distrust from foreign societal structures.
Relatively speaking, the typical expat can move around the world as they wish. Immigrants can't. So yes, immigrants, when they move, often do so, seeking to live elsewhere permanently.
I like the idea! Rooting for whoever in the universe working on it! Meanwhile, I think you could actually "mimic" this by using OBS as a virtual camera and use multiple layers to selectively share windows. You can set an output video size, and scale different layers/windows individually.
Neurodiverse people tend to think more in the abstract relative to neurotypical individuals (this could be a lengthy analysis and discussion of itself). When working with chatbots at a more abstract level, one may be more likely to leave with a satisfactory result—be it a solution to a question/problem or just the conversation itself. Perhaps that is the dynamic of what you have witnessed and described in this post. I don't think there is anything else useful one could infer beyond that.
> Going a step beyond: are we, in the grand timeline of civilization, uniquely evolved to fuse with this new type of intelligence?
I've seen this notion claimed and sometimes phrased like above in ND circles and forums. It would imply that neurodivergent individuals are evolutionarily relevant, and hence have higher importance (superiority) over neurotypical individuals. That would be elitist. It can parallel arguments made by, say, in the grand timeline of civilization, a racist who could think that a particular skin color is superior or a sexist who could think that men are superior to women and that each has to fulfill specific roles.
To argue that something has evolved to develop certain features, there has to be evidence that the population was facing (possibly survival) difficulties in the environment being studied, that said features are observed increasingly in the population over time, and that those adaptations helped and improved the lives of that population. There is no such evidence to support the claim.
Neurodivergence is not new. It has been recorded throughout history in various ways—one example [0]. ADHD, ASD, and anything else that falls into the ND space has existed for a long time. It's only in recent history, as psychiatry and relevant practices grew and developed that neurodivergent conditions were reclassified repeatedly, to the point now where these conditions and behaviors are being seen as part of/under one umbrella of neurodivergence.
How did "ADHD" enter the conversation out of the blue? If you're thinking this is how "ADHD-ish" experience is, I recommend you to check out /r/ADHD_programmers where people actually with ADD struggle to figure out how to ship consistently, let alone every day!
HN folks, I feel a FOMO for this OLED version because it's just so cool, but I already own a Deck. Would you say there would be an OLED version again, even if limited in stock, in the future?
There's a lot more context to each of the bullet points that seem more dramatic than how it feels in real life. But I want to put the spotlight on the 1-year and 5-year plans - that there aren't any. I feel that phrasing doesn't do justice because there's more context behind it.
Yes, there may not be company-wide top-down 5-year plans or planning cycles. Don't mistake this to be your usual breed of agile. What folks work on are ultimately much longer-term visions. I think everyone sort of has/owns their own ideas and plans for how an area, product/service, project, whatever, should grow into, and everyone is asked to make an effort in communicating those.
Internally, it's one giant networked negotiation machine.
The company adapts well to changing circumstances and market needs, but NVIDIA is strategic and thoughtful - once it goes after something, it rarely backs off. And usually, NVIDIA is going after things others are actively avoiding because the problems in those spaces are too difficult. The consequence of such problem sets are visions that 10-20 year undertakings, if not more, that everyone chips away at bit by bit until one fine day things start taking solid shape.
This is also made possible because everyone up the management chain, from ICs till up to JHH are technically adept. This is why sending out "top-5 things" works; not because it's written for everyone, but because everyone can read it. These emails aren't trimmed down. They are sent regularly. They can act as status updates but that's not their intention; they are literally what the title says "top five things" (on a team's agenda right now).
A key relevant item that's left out in the tweet but JHH mentions in the referenced interview, is "strategy". Leadership, from the bottom-up ensures everyone's going in the right direction for a body of work in a given area. All of which funnel up to a general strategy that NVIDIA executes.
You are missing a point overall I think - “just” signals simplicity, but it also signals dismissal of the difficulty the other person (receiver of “just”) is having. In that situation, to ask them to “just do it” will not help close the gap on why you think it’s simple and the other person has difficulty.
Because of your dismissal, they would not ask you again about it and could be apprehensive of exploring and closing that gap further themselves, especially when the “just” statement is made in a more public setting (eg. team meeting).
Whenever someone uses “just” as a way to signal simplicity and the other person does not concur, there exists a gap. The more someone dismisses another person’s difficulties, the bigger that gap. “Just” statements offer a solution which can help make progress. But who’s helping address that gap and how? Food for thought.
I dislike how mean and critical HN can get sometimes. The article is clearly titled "A guide", not "The guide"! The OP link builds on top of using containerization / docker. Some find it useful, some would benefit from it. Doesn't mean that embrace is "silly", "nonsense", "cult", and whatnot. If you don't prefer something, make that known, that's fine. If there's something to add or alternatives to suggest, do so. One doesn't have to shitpile on a fairly well written, referenced and organized article.
Mostly, yes, unfortunately. Avocado oil is also quite highly processed but is the lesser among the evils. Extra virgin olive oil and unprocessed coconut oil are good. I've come to understand that reducing fat intake via cooking oils but increasing it via healthier raw/unprocessed fats are better (olive oil, dietary fats from fish, eggs, etc).
Also note that, oils can oxidize fairly easily. I still don't know how to procure oils from supermarkets that I'm sure are not already oxidized. Then comes the matter of storing it in ways to prevent oils from oxidizing.