Do you read all libraries and basal low level code beneath your projects? Do you understand fully the entire stack from you to silicon? If not this is just more layers of abstraction.
They’re comparable in an exponential view. I remember the librarian teaching us how to look through boxes of cards. Then Google came out a few years later. For a couple decades, Google-fu was a superpower that most people didn’t know they needed.
It’s a Lose for the employees of the current system. You’re cheekily superiorly saving a few bucks on a cause that isn’t going to be helped by snubbing a servicing worker.
There are a few tip free restaurants around, it’s sort of rare. Tipping at basically every random shop is out of control nowadays tho.
Is it? They’re pricier, they’re not available in food deserts, they go bad much more quickly, and they require more skill to cook into a delicious meal.
You can get beans anywhere. If they are not available fresh, they are equally nutritous when dried or in a can. They are tasty, easy to cook, and an excellent source of fiber and protein.
If you don't like beans, how about a peanut butter sandwich. If you lack the requisite kitchen skills, ask a six year old to make you one.
The fact is that most people just prefer to eat other stuff. We prioritize convenience over health, enabled by food industries that profit from selling us junk.
If you buy fresh vegetables, I don't necessarily think they're pricier but they do require more planning. You need to buy what is in season, which means planning meals around what is in season and cheap to buy, which changes on the season.
For certain staples, buying frozen is extremely cheap, can be cheaper than fresh, can be better than buying fresh as frozen as soon as picked, and extremely easy to cook. I've always got frozen broccoli, carrots, peas, green beans, spinach in the freezer. Three minutes in a microwave steamer and it's an easy side, or add in to meals near the end of cooking.
I also always have a bag of potatoes in the house, cheap, keep well, easy to steam in microwave, can mash, can bake, pop in the airfryer etc.
Disgree except with the food desert thing. Theyreactually way cheaper than some chemically-generated-fiber cookies n cream bar bullshit. Its just that they take some effort and time to make and everyone wants convenience
I'll grant you the food dessert and going back arguments, but unless I'm buying particularly out of season or less common, foreign vegetables, produce is often one of the cheapest sections of the store.
What specifically is smarmy and weird? Sounds like your own hot take with zero analysis.
They’re limiting frontier model development speed. Others are too. Pacing is the only word here to criticize, and I think it’s fine given the limiting of speed but also increased oversight. I’m not saying they’re fully doing this, but the term is fine.
It is that, but it's also your speed. When running, you typically pick a pace that's slower than your max, so it can be sustained for the full distance.
"Pace yourself" doesn't specifically mean "slow down", it actually means to maximize your speed across the full race. In other words it can mean speeding up when you look at the average pace across the entire event.
Yes, and pacing also stops you running too fast at the beginning of the race and blowing up. I believe "we can finish the overall race faster" is part of the metaphor they were aiming for.
It does, but "pace yourself" is something we say to kids (for example) to tell them to slow down because they're going too fast. We don't tell people to pace themselves because they're going too slow.
It may not be true that “most people who know what they’re doing” aren’t using AI. It’s infiltrating into every big company, thousands of very skillful people are all-in blasting out tons of code and work with it. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, just stating the view from industry is: heavy use often encouraged.
Yes but that's for efficiency, they don't just say "make a cool game" they tell the AI exactly what to do so it doesn't break anything , that still need skill and you still have to check the code for bugs , I was referring to people who just put a single prompt and expect something good to be made from it
> Writing helps us think about the world, it’s a pivotal intellectual technology.
Much like money decoupled selling and buying to move away from bartering, writing decoupled saying and hearing so they didn't have to happen at the same time. The incredible step that happened was not that people had to think a whole lot, it was that thinking that was already happening had to happen once.
> All writing is thinking when done by a human, you’re literally distilling your thoughts into words. You can’t write without thought.
Of course you can. You can write down exactly what you hear, for dictation.
You can write down a stream of consciousness and put barely any thought into it at all.
I can't help but feel most here are massively over estimating human writing. Human writing is, almost universally, terrible. We have entire jobs that are hard to fill just to make things sort of ok. Good writing is a small subset of human output.
I have been thinking over this comment for a while now. I think yes, you are correct that thought is involved in writing but I don't think it is possible to claim "all writing is thinking when done by a human". Like what type of thinking are you claiming here?
Because one can copy a text and write it down and that involves thinking in the sense that anything we do involves thinking fundamentally. But that thinking is different from thinking logically about a concept and writing it down which I think is where you are getting at.
The definition of writing and thinking is too broad in that sentence even though it does apply in several obvious cateogires within that at different levels.
And also "writing helps us think about the world" is too broad again. Why? Why does me writing "apt apt apt apt apt apt apt" help me think about the world? I just wrote it because i felt like writing it. Why wouldn't you consider that writing?
Yes, but not to understand or think about the world. In this case, writing was to express something, not to understand something. The overall point is that claiming that "human writing = human thinking" is too broad a general statement to make seriously.
That's what I am saying, zero thoughts is not possible unless you define what thoughts/thinking are you referring too.
Of course you cannot do anything without like basic thought otherwise you will not be able to do anything.
So I am not sure what you mean by non-contrived? It has to be contrived because we are talking specifics like I said.
If thinking = consiousness then yes you cannot write without being consious. But if thinking = having complex logical thoughts and writing about them then I would say yes it is possible to write without that.
My only claim is that just because you are writing something doesn't automatically mean you are having complex thoughts about what you are writing. So writing = thinking doesn't sit right. I can tell you i often just mindlessly write words on my journal sometimes but that is also a contrived example. Yet the existence of the example is the point. You cannot categorically claim something if exceptions (no matter how contrived) can be raised.
You wrote "apt apt apt apt apt apt" to prove a very specific point no? Absolutely requires reasoning and understanding the problem to go there. And good luck getting an LLM to do that.
Yes, I wrote it to prove that writing doesn't mean I understand the world. It responds to "writing helps you understand the world." My point was that, yes, of course you can find categories within it that apply, which is why the answer is not fundamentally incorrect. Claiming "writing = thinking" in a general sense is very broad, and that's my point.
This is an example of the problem. I did choose to write it in the way that although I knew it can be interpreted trivially, if the reader assumes I'm an imbecile. It was a "punchy" recap of the relatively long explanation for a HN comment and hopefully decently argued point.
reply