Coming from the blockchain space, but wanting to build something with bright patterns, while also using DLT and crypto, has been painful, to say the least.
I would like to know how best to stand out from the toxic, finance-driven world that is defi and crypto generally, without getting rolled in with all the clowns. Of course, I know that clear messaging and verifiable, evidence-driven claims are good, but I am thinking about the more abstract, strategic side to things, which I still feel under-prepared for.
I appreciate that you're being honest about this challenge. In the book, I actually say that one of the problems with our modern economy is that we've created too many ways to make money without creating any value at all, in fact sometimes even by destroying value. When I give this talk in public settings, I'll sometimes have someone yell out "crypto" from the audience. That is how the public perceives the whole sector.
The good news is that we all know that being a bold contrarian is the key to returns. If you can figure out a way to structure your initiative such that it literally cannot betray the public, it literally cannot betray your mission, it literally cannot betray human values, you might be able to create something that people are awfully excited about.
I really love it when people put spirit into a piece of writing that, thanks to an algorithm (that's another name for AI, by the way) suggests it to me on HN.
I am pleased that I can share musical discoveries with friends that were recommended by an AI, or make them laugh with some absurd image that fell out of Dall-E.
I am happy that, with the help of an AI, i can make a news reader that is full of bright patterns, instead of dark ones, that i can share with my friends so that their standard of life is ever-so-slightly better.
Reducing the commentary to "tool bad" is lazy, even when beautifully phrased
most people understand it to be an LLM, but that doesn't make the term mean only that. the point was illustrative, perhaps Meta's attention maximization algos would be a better example
my point was not that they are the same, but that the author seems to advocate for some technologies, like video calling and text messages, but cannot make the leap to see that it is how we use that matters. It is a selective diabtribe, framed in a positive voice, hence my counter-examples to match
the author is not describing the world. they are describing their experience of it. classic mistake, and quite an anxious version of it.
it's not wrong, but it is tangled in the waves...
people who choose to live in deep in ignorance do so well. many evil people sleep sweetly because they simply do not care.
those that care swim to the surface to escape the pressure, but there they find waves, smashing them against the cliffs.
the trick is to break free from the surface. clearly the author has the will, but not yet the tools. to help, i would suggest the following:
- learn the difference between complexity and complicatedness
- learn about systems thinking
- keep developing your emotional smarts, and actively use this capacity
- read Krishnamurti
We have CNC machines, and we still have sculptors.
Mechanising the production of code is good thing. And crafting code as art is a good thing. It is sign of a wider trend that we need to look at these things like adversaries.
I look forward to the code-as-art countermovement. It's gonna be quite something.
Geez, I'm reminded of a business student's idea of "Uber for photoshoppers" (this is ~20 years ago): you upload your picture, you say what you want changed, and I guess you pick which photoshopper's work looks convincing from a marketplace of them...
He had a website, and the sample pic is a girl lying on her back, and in the "after" picture she's wearing a bigger cup-size..
This is intentionally much narrower: no custom requests, no creative edits.
It only does technical corrections that photographers already apply (lighting, white balance, perspective, sharpness).
Think more automated Lightroom than crowdsourced Photoshop.
I don’t see it as lying any more than adjusting exposure or white balance on a camera does.
It doesn’t add or remove anything from the scene, it just fixes bad lighting, color cast, perspective, and sharpness, basically what any decent photographer already does in post.
If anything, it helps photos reflect how the place actually looks in real life instead of dark, crooked, yellowish snapshots.
I love the idea that we believe that we can replicate all of the natural processes involved in getting a tan, and to such a precision that we can then speed up the process 10 fold, and that we can fit it all into a single unit that can be wheeled in and out of the room.
Unless of course our calculations are a bit off, then we accidentally created a bed version of the wrong chalice from raiders of the lost ark, but I think it's fine.
Some cell and animal studies show that there is a slight possible effect. It hasn't been shown in humans, and even in extrapolation from animals, the protective benefit does not seem particularly significant.
Strong reaction? I don’t know anyone who would believe that.
I don’t think we need to replicate everything about nature to incorporate what we know about nature, ourselves, and the practical details of our lives.
I have bright LEDs around my ceilings, hidden by cove molding, turning the whole ceiling into soft but bright reflected daylight.
It doesn’t need to replicate a real summer day outside to improve my mood and avoid depression in winter. Much better than ordinary indoor lighting.
Most people take some kind of supplement or medication that doesn’t replicate pre-technological natural conditions but provide benefits.
Improving our respective conditions, in the artificial world we live in, can involve quirky adaptations for each of us.
reply