Playing in the Creek

It's not about AI development, it's about something mentioned earlier in the article: "make as much money as I can". The problems that we see with AI have little to do with AI "development", they have to do with AI marketing and promulgation. If the author had gone ahead and dammed the creek with a shovel, or blown off his hand, that would have been bad, but not that bad. Those kinds of mistakes are self-limiting because if you're doing something for the enjoyment or challenge of it, you won't do it at a scale that creates more enjoyment than you personally can experience. In the parable of the CEO and the fisherman, the fisherman stops at what he can tangibly appreciate.

If everyone working on and using AI were approaching it like damming a creek for fun, we would have no problems. The AI models we had might be powerful, but they would be funky and disjointed because people would be more interested in tinkering with them than making money from them. We see tons of posts on HN every day about remarkable things people do for the gusto. We'd see a bunch of posts about new AI models and people would talk about how cool they are and go on not using them in any load-bearing way.

As soon as people start trying to use anything, AI or not, to make as much money as possible, we have a problem.

The second missed takeaway is at the end. He says Anthropic is noticing the coquinas as if that means they're going to somehow self-regulate. But in most of the examples he gives, he wasn't stopped by his own realization, but by an external authority (like parents) telling him to stop. Most people are not as self-reflective as this author and won't care about "winning zero sum games against people who don't necessarily deserve to lose", let alone about coquinas. They need a parent to step in and take the shovel away.

As long as we keep treating "making as much money as you can" as some kind of exception to the principle of "you can't keep doing stuff until you break something", we'll have these problems, AI or not.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not immune to these feelings either. I want to do good work and I want people to love what I do. But there's something so... so fucking nakedly exhibitionist and narcissistic about these kinds of posts. Like, so, GO FUCKING LAY WITH CLAMS, write a novel, the world is waiting for it if you're really a genius. Have the courage to say you have a conscience if you actually do. Leave the rest of us alone and stop polluting a world you don't understand with your childish greed and self-obsession.

Complicated!

I noticed that, around the turn of the century, when "The Web" was suddenly all about the Benjamins.

It's sort of gone downhill, since.

For myself, I've retired, and putter around in my "software garden." I do make use of AI, to help me solve problems, and generate code starts, but I am into it for personal satisfaction.

Me, I don't have billions of dollars, but I might be in the top 10% or something. And I just cringe when I see guys use their money and status or job title, or connections, or cars or shoes or... anything they have as opposed to who they are as a way to impress people. (Women, usually). I understand this is what they think they have to do. Like, I understand that's how primates function, and you're just doing what apes do, but do they seriously think they'll ever be able to trust anyone who pretends to like them after that person thinks they're rich?

Maybe I'm just lucky I got to watch it up close when I was a teenager. Lol. My brother's first wife, at his wedding, got up and gave a speech... she said, "my friends all said he was too short, but I told them he was taller when he was standing on his wallet". Some people laughed. I didn't. After fifteen years of screaming at each other and drug abuse, she committed suicide and he got with the next secretary who hated him but wanted his money. Oh well.

My answer has always been to appear to be poor as fuck until I know what drives someone. When I meet a girl, I'll open doors and always buy dinner... at a $2 taco joint. And make sure she offers to buy the next round of drinks. I'll play piano in a random bar, and make her sing along. I'll order her the cheapest beer. I'll show her a painting I made and tell her I can't make any money selling 'em, is why I'm broke. If anyone asks me what I do, I don't say SWE or CTO, I say I'm a writer or a musician between things. And I'll do this for months until I get to know a person. Yeah, it's a test. The girls I've had relationships with, the girl I'm with right now, passed it. She doesn't even want to know. She says, whatever you got, I could've been with someone richer than you but I didn't want that life, so play piano for me. I'm not saying I've got the key to happiness, or humility, and maybe I'm a total asshole too, but... at least I'm not an asshole who's so hollow they have to crow about their job or their money to find "love" from people who - let's say this - can not, and will not ever love them.

In reflecting on my career I can say I got into it for the right reasons. That is, I liked programming — but also found out fairly quickly that not everyone could do it and so it could be a career path that would prove lucrative. And this in particular for someone who had no other likelihood, for example, of ever owning a home. I was probably not going to be able to afford graduate school (had barely paid for state college by working minimum wage jobs throughout college and over the summers) and regardless I was not the most studious person. (My degree was Education — I had expected a modest income as a career high school teacher).

But as I say, I enjoyed programming at first. And when it arrived, the web was just a giant BBS as far as I was concerned and so of course I liked it. But it is possible to find a thing that you really like can go to shit over the ensuing decades. (And for that matter, my duties as an engineer got shittier as well as the career "evolved". I had not originally signed up for code reviews, unit tests, scrum, etc. Oh well.)

Money as a pursuit made sense to me after I was in the field and saw that others around me were doing quite well — able as I say, to afford to buy a home — something I had assumed would always be out of reach for me (my single mother had always rented, I assumed I would as well — oh, I still had a modest college loan to pay off too). So I learned about 30-year home loans, learned about the real estate market in the Bay Area, learned also about RSUs, capital gains tax, 401Ks, index finds, etc.

But as is becoming a theme in this thread (?) at some point I was satisfied that I had done enough to secure a home, tools for my hobbies, and had raised three girls — paid for their college. I began to see the now burdensome career I was in as an albatross around my soul. The technology that I had once enjoyed, made my career on the back of, had gone sour.

You got yours. Now what?

I could have skipped sooner maybe?

Once I had kids though I found I had a higher tolerance for a job getting shittier, a lower tolerance for restarting in a new career. So I put up with a worsening job for them.

I quit the moment my last daughter left for college.

You're also not the only one doing charity work.

Just sayin'.

I think it's a little deeper than that. It's the democratization of capability.

If few people have the tools, the craftsman is extremely valuable. He can make a lot of money without a glut of knowledge or real skill. In general the people don't have the tools and skills to catch up to where he is. He is wealthy with only frontloaded effort.

If everyone has the same tools, the craftsman still has value, because of the knowledge and skillset developed over time. He makes more money because his skills are valuable and remain scarce; he's incentivized to further this skillset to stay above the pack, continue to be in demand, and make more money.

If the tools do the job for you, the craftsman has limited value. He's an artifact. No matter how much he furthers his expertise, most people will just turn the tool on and get good enough product.

We're in between phase 2 and 3 at the moment. We still test for things like algorithm design and ask questions in interviews about the complexity of approaches. A lot of us still haven't moved on to the "ok but now what?" part of the transition.

The value now is less knowing how the automation works and improving our knowledge of the underlying design, but how to use the tools in ways that produce more value than the average Joe. It's a hard transition for people who grew up thinking this was all you needed to get a comfortable or even lucrative life.

I'm past my SDE interview phase of life now and in seeking engineers I'm looking less for people who know how to build a version of the tool and more people who operate in the present, have accepted the change, and want to use what they have access to and add human utility to make the sum of the whole greater than the parts.

To me the best part of building software was the creativity. That part hasn't changed. If anything it's more important than ever.

Ultimately we're building things to be consumed by consumers. That hasn't changed. The creek started flowing in a different direction and your job in this space is not to keep putting rocks where the water used to go, and more accepting that things are different and you have to adapt.

You've precisely defined why nobody takes LessWrong seriously.

Jesus turned over tables when they were trying to profit inside the church. His movement seemed to turn out pretty good.

I get it that money coming into the industry made the whole industry suck. Honestly, Apple was a much more fun to place to work at when there was no money to be made there (no more than a paycheck anyway). Others may disagree, but I found its success made it increasingly a shittier place to work. (Others though, as I say, may have enjoyed the wider reach the platform enjoyed with its success.)

> Jesus turned over tables when they were trying to profit inside the church. His movement seemed to turn out pretty good.

Applying this story to posting anonymous comments on an internet forum seems like a stretch. There are hardly any meaningful consequences for your decision to write in this way, whereas Jesus very much became a target after that demonstration.

If that isn't one of the deepest aphorisms on psychology out there, I don't know what is.

I'm not religious, but for this alone you deserve a life of blessings and happiness. The fact that I never ever have to fuck around with Adobe PDF apps to juggle PDFs is one of the load-bearing things keeping me sane in an insane world.

May you enjoy your retirement tinkering in your software garden.

See https://www.streetepistemology.com/ for content about this. It is possible to guide discussions in a healthy manner and with positive goals in mind.

Hey, as long as they are both up front and clear about what they are getting out of their relationship. They're grown adults after all. I knew someone who proudly would admit he was a "sugar daddy" and both he and his "girlfriends" would fully agree that their relationships were transactional and contingent on the money flow. I knew someone in college who was very open and unapologetic that her plan was to find and marry someone rich. There's no right and wrong.

I can’t stand Adobe Reader, and use Preview, all the time.

Oh, that was you? One of the few bits of skeuomorphism I can still find in the OS. I wish we still had more of that.

Fewer people can read dead comments. And what others said.

It is funny that people thing Daoists do not get angry and yet all of you suppress anger in some unnatural way to "get along" or to make sure you are not dwnvoted.