where does it say "own"?
it says: "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content"
type something - it's "used" to get what "you" want - how is that "own"?
It's also "you manage what you measure" - measure the wrong stuff ...
I agree with empathy and 'EQ', better still if we can measure the outcomes we really want (vs the easy ones). That requires knowledge and insight.
Thanks, and agree it can feel 'mean and nasty' to disagree online - and that in-person politeness would help - yes, people will post things they wouldn't say.
PG has a take on why HN is more civil tl;dr 'it's behaviour not people' - in: 'dilution' at paulgraham dot com hackernews html
I'm old enough to be able to say confidently that there were plenty of de-socialised people before 'technology'. I'm with the OP that is a 'social', ie: human nature, issue - those 3 things - but also a skill - especially in a work environment where you don't know your colleagues as well (points 1 & 2) and you don't necessarily have 'psychological safety' (point 3).
As a counter example, I've recently been following the 'rise if cardboard', specifically the evolution of magic: the gathering, because some young friends offered to teach me the 'commander' variant - it's basically managed conflict in a social setting - I have to acknowledge, they're more skilled than me - I'm learning more than just the gameplay.
There's a nice article 'power struggles among nice people' that's relevant too - because of the automatic effect this has on our language (cue Steven Pinker). I'm with the group that thinks we have large brains to navigate complex social environments - ie: this stuff - because it's hard.
Let me make a start - and others can weigh in...
I guess, that's my first point - a 'good' answer requires more nuance than the question provides.
We're only a short evolutionary distance from our hunter-gatherer past, learning is still social, even 'academic' learning - why else ask these things on HN?
A little while ago,I was turned down for a training course - offered to all, our CEO said 'you could learn that from a book' - true, but; I wanted an on-ramp to an unfamiliar area (felt I didn't know what I didn't know).
I think the bard scenario provides an alluring step forward but misses some of the complexity of learning (especially for this audience who have internalized it).
Short answer, I think it's a useful idea, we (bard) is not there - yet - will be a useful research assistant, has a way to go before being a tutor, I'm not sure our (human) side would benefit from replacing good lecturers - the best I've known could steer my curiosity in a way (social) that I don't see emerging from LLMs - yet...
I think the author may be taking the (unspoken) position that we are just a physical system, no cartesian dualism, so comparisons of scale (accepting that processing mechanisms are vastly different) may be relevant.
So Broca’s and Wernicke’s may be the scale of current LLMs, but that leaves other mechanisms in our GI, like the rest of the brain + processing elsewhere eg: the gut - and the social dimension of intelligence, on the table.
I still found it an interesting read - just for the scale discussion.
isn't the point (of the pile) that you tug on this thing - and it's attached to that, you tug on that... etc - ie: brain associations are more complex than a mesh. I remember tidying up my daughter's room and destroying her ability to find her clothes - she had no place to start...