Peering through my brain fog to read that (maybe you shouldn't give up writing about it either.) Here's what I can say right now.
Seems to be the difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilty until proven innocent" and cringely's approach seems to be..
...
It seemed to me at first read to have been the former, but now that you put a spotlight on it, it doesn't seem so clear
Will sleep on it, but I don't think anthropomorphizing is the issue here, it's more about success probabilities/cost. Can a jury of MoEs decide whether one of their mates is guilty? Versus alternative jurisprudential arrangements.
That might or might not be the untimely "technicalities" that I was referring to, heh. It depends on whether anybody thinks that hallucinations are an inescapable consequence of sentience. I don't, but maybe it's just because I find hallucinations to be a stale take on the issue, a "red herring" for why Jensen has only emotional arguments against Dario.
Why does Jensen not invoke Huang's Law? It seems to be, not just a slamdunk approach to my Qs 3 and 4, but one morally (ahem!) superior to Dario's inconsistent marketing?
Scientists and consultants both build models.
The scientists do,
Step 1: Build Model
Step 2: Think of implications
Step 3: Check if observations make sense based on implications
Step 4: If wrong, refine model or go back to Step 1. If right, submit to other people and ask them to verify.
The consultants do,
Step 1: Build model.
Step 2: Tell people this is the right model.
You’re missing the consulting steps:
0: Figure out what to build.
-1: Win contract.
-2: Declare that you have the best model and it’s perfect for this client.
:D
[flagged]
You're misapplying your evaluation here. The most you might say is "don't take front-end Dec advice from them".
Instead of discarding the whole thing, just take what's good and leave the rest.
It is not technical advice. It seems some general career advice for tech people (don't just think in technical context).
But mainly it is a ad to hire her as your coach.
[dead]
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48725262
Peering through my brain fog to read that (maybe you shouldn't give up writing about it either.) Here's what I can say right now.
Seems to be the difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilty until proven innocent" and cringely's approach seems to be..
...
It seemed to me at first read to have been the former, but now that you put a spotlight on it, it doesn't seem so clear
Will sleep on it, but I don't think anthropomorphizing is the issue here, it's more about success probabilities/cost. Can a jury of MoEs decide whether one of their mates is guilty? Versus alternative jurisprudential arrangements.
That might or might not be the untimely "technicalities" that I was referring to, heh. It depends on whether anybody thinks that hallucinations are an inescapable consequence of sentience. I don't, but maybe it's just because I find hallucinations to be a stale take on the issue, a "red herring" for why Jensen has only emotional arguments against Dario.
Why does Jensen not invoke Huang's Law? It seems to be, not just a slamdunk approach to my Qs 3 and 4, but one morally (ahem!) superior to Dario's inconsistent marketing?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48725813