Reading this article, I think Elon Musk is a genius. He's truly smart. He's cutting the budget of his smartest competitor, NASA, so that when national scientists and engineers are thrown out onto the streets, they'll end up at SpaceX.
Not only that, but real innovations like cancer treatments require decades of unprofitable 'basic science' grunt work. Musk and his friends don't care about saving humanity 30 years from now. He talks about going to Mars with nonsense lies to fatten his own pockets. And by filling the science advisory committee with VCs instead of scientists, he has turned science in America from a 'pursuit of truth' into a 'Silicon Valley VC portfolio.'
Elon Musk is a genius. He will destroy the growth engines that could produce his future competitors, and he will reign forever.
The smart thing about Elon Musk and his friends is their ban on international cooperation among scientists and their word censorship. They seem to think that viruses like Ebola will enter the country by getting a Trump card issued. Clearly, smart people like them cannot understand ordinary people like us. To them, it's only natural that everything comes through a visa, so they probably think viruses come through visas too.
Elon Musk's lecturing about border etiquette for viruses can be described as a kind of elite duty. Indeed, injecting morality into something immoral is 'noblesse oblige.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but he hasn't been part of this administration for a while. And also i'm not quite sure you have his views on NASA funding (one of his main customers) right, you're just making them up.
He is a genius though, great results on the market.
When I see notes like this, I wonder whether every success story can really be summarized and patternized this way. If you're building an AI based startup, what exactly would be the point of differentiation? That seems to be the difficult part
I wonder if the '1,000 True Fans' concept, which is basically a traditional model, will still work these days. That aside, isn't the hacking style self help genre itself a kind of outdated relic? Honestly, I've read some of this author's books, and they have a distinctly optimistic 2000s to 2010s vibe. Over time, the delivery of knowledge and methodologies changes. Maybe the issue is that the content no longer fits the times.
Looking at the author's books, they're full of healthy living and optimistic narratives. In my view, maybe the problem isn't the old approach itself, but that we need to answer new questions. Like, 'How do I survive in an era where AI takes away jobs?'
And I think the most critical point in this post is this passage:
'What happens when 99% of the rigorously fact checked media is behind a paywall? The short answer: people skip it and ask the AI.'
We use AI for things we don't consider important. If that's the case, I think the key is to convince the public that what I do is something AI cannot replace.
Honestly, I used to think the 'sovereign model' was a waste of money. But recently, with the US logic of restricting model exports, I've come to think that if things go south, they could even cut off allied nations. So now the sovereign model seems reasonable to me. That, in turn, means US influence is deteriorating. And that probably isn't such great news for American businesses.
0.2 %is quite significant, isn't it? My small website (www.makonea.com) gets about 90,000 visitors a month on average. (That's about 300 per day?) So that means a post gets shared about once every two days. Maybe I should seriously consider making my posts more shareable. And if I promote it on HN, I'd hope there's a 0.2 %chance that people would check out my site.
I cannot understand the decision to withdraw this for purely political reasons. What I don't understand about the Trump administration is that they are dismantling all of America's diplomatic power. Trump has the 'ability to become president'—self PR, black propaganda against opponents, that sort of thing. But he does not have the 'ability to run a country.'
As Professor Ed Dever said, after ten years we are only now beginning to get 'some hints,' yet they present it as if no solution has been offered. But this kind of data is long term time series data. If some of it gets damaged, it would take decades of operation again.
The value being undermined in the United States is enormous. They withdraw this simply because their supporters don't believe in climate change, for the sake of approval ratings. But this damages trust in long term research projects in the US, and America's leadership in the R&D world. If the cost is that high, why did they go to war with Iran?
There are so many things I don't understand. Why, while calling themselves a consumer nation, are they destroying the hegemony they themselves built?
True dominance requires the consent of the governed. America's status as the strongest superpower was a product of the consent of surrounding subordinate nations. That's what Antonio Gramsci talked about.
Things the US scaled back, like USAID, also created a favorable image of American imperialism. So even though the US invaded and destroyed South American countries in reality, it played a role in making people believe it was truly about freedom and progress. That is symbolic capital. But what Trump is doing now is beyond comprehension.
From a third party perspective, Trump administration policies make it look like they imagine a feudal system built on top of America as the supreme state. They are destroying long term leadership and the trust the US has built.
Some might call the Trump administration's actions 'unpretentious honesty.' But this is not honesty. It's just greed. The Trump administration seems to have created America's bankruptcy. In my view, Trump always wins. It's just not America's victory
>The Trump administration seems to have created America's bankruptcy. In my view, Trump always wins. It's just not America's victory
You summed it up perfectly right there. It's not about anything good for America or really anything good at all. It's pure greed. It's doing the bidding of whoever is paying him the most. It's destroying America on purpose for the benefit of foreign and international interests. I honestly believe they are trying to engineer the most possible death and destruction so that they can swoop in an take what's left for themselves. Destroy the economy and buy everything up at bargain sale prices. Starve the people and deny them any relief. Make homelessness illegal so you can legally enslave them. Those that don't starve to death will work in the camps.
The reason they do this is because they are, like many other people in this country, completely driven mad by religious fervor. It seems completely irrational because it is.
Silicon Valley is filled with people, at the top echelons of the most valuable companies in the world, who genuinely believe they have invented divine intelligence by making a mathematical model of human speech.
Utah is for all intents and purposes a religious enclave.
We’re just like this - I don’t know what else to say. I guess we were better at hiding it when we felt we had something to lose.
It's not the majority of us. Unfortunately too many people don't care and don't think elections matter so we've allowed an extremist minority to dominate, fueled by right-wing media propaganda.
To be fair, the other party that matters has dropped the ball on too many occasions, or been complicit, so there's some reason for all the apathy. That plus winner-takes all elections leaves a lot of people feeling like their vote doesn't matter.
You could be right. I don't really know much about FFMpeg. But going from 0 to 1 and going from 1 to 100 are different. Usually, people remember the 0 to 1 step more. Symbolic capital tends to go to the first mover. It might feel unfair, but we always remember the first challenger. It might be spaghetti code, there might be countless contributions later, but that's usually how it goes
How on earth were those people able to create such amazing things? Will I ever be able to create something that brilliant someday? What should I even make? I have so many more tools than they did, even LLMs. Where can I learn the ideas and skills they had?
The smart path: Find good mentors (and return the favor); use LLMs not to do the work but to help you learn and exercise your brain: make them test you, using something aking to teacher/Socratic method, make mistakes and get the mentor/LLM to review in a way you figure out the answer.
The converse: Most itches will either be idiosyncratic, and not get you much attention, or lots of people will be scratching them and it's hard to come out "on top".
I scratch lots of itches, but I also know that most of them are very, very fringe. So going into scratching itches expecting fame is not going to go well for most. But scratching itches is satisfying, so for my part at least I don't care.
Don't use LLMs except for the most menial things. Get as much practice in creating various things. Study expert-level books on related subjects. Foster your creativity in other areas too (i.e. writing, drawing, music). Don't pass up the chance to work with veteran developers; be ready for that opportunity when it comes.
I don't understand why people obsess over LLM(AI)format. The content is interesting, but they dismiss it just because the format is an issue. All of this content is worth reading and is good. And it's about security.
It's really annoying. Honestly I'm impressed how quickly one becomes able to smell it after seeing enough of it, I feel like a year or two ago everyone thought LLM bots would be forever indistinguishable from real users (and in fairness, the well-managed ones probably are).
No hate on the author, but LLMs just have such an annoying and overdramatic way of phrasing things. The content is worth reading, I enjoyed it! It would just be even better if it hadn't been turned into such a slog to read through.
The content is rendered unreadable by the LLMs sentence construction. Secondly, it's insulting. If you didn't care enough to write it, why should I care enough to read it?
I saw the this post. Wasn't it a capture of something that actually happened? So it just described a real story. I can doubt the authenticity of all of it whether it's really true or not. but the content itself was interesting enough.
What I don't understand is this: 'Show sincerity'—that is, a human value. If it were AI-generated, stitched-together false content, I'd understand, but I see quite a few interesting points.
Whenever I see things like this, I always think of Sturgeon's law: 90% is bad, and only 10% is interesting. I get that most AI-generated content is AI slop. But even back when only humans could write, there were plenty of clickbait articles.
I agree that GEN AI spam content is generally bad, and I also agree that some of it may lack effort. But honestly, I'm not sure this content is completely meaningless.
Regardless of the packaging, if the content inside is interesting and valuable enough, I think that's what matters. I guess we just see things quite differently.
So what I'm saying is, I don't agree with the idea that he didn't care at all.
Books? No, not really. Maybe others will have better suggestions for newcomers, sorry. Are you talking research novelty or just applying current methods to a given task?
The latter is covered well by Andrej Karpathy's videos and by just playing around with current models and other tutorials in a small test environment. You don't need to know very much, there's a lot of low-hanging fruit.
For the former, the field is moving rapidly and most of the innovations are coming from papers. Any book that claims to cover deep learning is almost inevitably outdated. Find a university or institution near you and see if they have an undergraduate reading group on deep learning that is open to the public to attend. Mine does, and it's really helpful for staying up to date with the latest ideas. "Probabilistic Machine Learning" by Murphy contains the material that I would consider prerequisite if you want to understand the ideas which underpin modern deep learning (even if it contains virtually no deep learning in it), and I would hope that any student or colleague of mine would be familiar with most of it. But I'm not sure it's good to learn from, and picking all that up takes a while to be honest.
I was mostly referring to Volume 1 (not advanced topics). You have a point that Volume 2 definitely contains more. To be honest, I was mostly covering myself from a "that's not real deep learning" criticism; "relatively recent developments" is pretty generous if you're active in the field. Given its rapidity, anything over a few years old is essentially considered classical. It's almost impossible to have a book that is up-to-date with the state of the art here.
These are very nice volumes though (RL one is good too), and Murphy should be commended for the amount of work in here. It's probably as good a compendium as one can expect.
Not only that, but real innovations like cancer treatments require decades of unprofitable 'basic science' grunt work. Musk and his friends don't care about saving humanity 30 years from now. He talks about going to Mars with nonsense lies to fatten his own pockets. And by filling the science advisory committee with VCs instead of scientists, he has turned science in America from a 'pursuit of truth' into a 'Silicon Valley VC portfolio.'
Elon Musk is a genius. He will destroy the growth engines that could produce his future competitors, and he will reign forever.
The smart thing about Elon Musk and his friends is their ban on international cooperation among scientists and their word censorship. They seem to think that viruses like Ebola will enter the country by getting a Trump card issued. Clearly, smart people like them cannot understand ordinary people like us. To them, it's only natural that everything comes through a visa, so they probably think viruses come through visas too. Elon Musk's lecturing about border etiquette for viruses can be described as a kind of elite duty. Indeed, injecting morality into something immoral is 'noblesse oblige.
reply