[BrenBarn]

It's a nice article. In a way though it kind of bypasses what I see as the main takeaways.

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.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

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

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.

[nkozyra]

> it's about something mentioned earlier in the article: "make as much money as I can".

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.

[BrenBarn]

I don't agree. "Capability" is a red herring. It's not about what we can do, it's about what we allow ourselves to do.

[noduerme]

This is such a well-written response. There's something intentionally soothing about this post that slowly turns into a jarring form of self-congratulation as it goes along. Congratulations for knowing there's a limit to wrecking your parents' property. Congratulations for being able to appreciate the sand on the beach, in some no doubt instagrammable moment of existential simplicity. Congratulations for being so smart that you could have blown up your hand. And for "Leetcoding", whatever the fuck that means. And for claiming you quit a shady job because you got bored (but possibly also grew a conscience). And then topped off by the final turn: "This is, of course, about artificial intelligence development". I'd only add one thing to your analysis: We've got a demo right here of a psyche that would prefer love to money (but mostly both), and it's still determined to foist bad things onto the world in a load-bearing way, as a bid for either, or whatever it can get. My parents used to call that "a kid that doesn't care if he gets good or bad attention, as long as he gets attention." I think that's the root driver for almost all the tech billionaires of the past 20 years, and the one thing that unites Bezos, Zuck, Jobs, Dorsey, Musk... it's: "Look dad, I didn't just take your money. I'm so smart I could'a blown off my hand with all those fireworks you bought me, but see? Two hands! Look how much money I made from your money! Why aren't you proud of me?! Where can I find love? Maybe if I tell people what a leetcoder I am and how I could be making BAD AI but I'm just making GOOD AI, then everyone will love me."

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.

[bombcar]

I’ve often wondered how, with billions of dollars, do you know someone actually loves you and not your money?

Complicated!

[noduerme]

I've got a particularly strong view on this, because I've got a brother who tried to get wildly rich in some seriously unethical ways to impress our father, and still never got a single word of praise from him. And who's miserable and unloved and been betrayed by the women he married... who married him for his money. He's so desperate for someone to come admire his cars and his TVs, to just come hang out with him. He pays for friends.

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.

[bombcar]

One of the things I’ve heard, and found to be true, is that if you don’t love yourself it’s going to be terribly hard for others to love you

[munificent]

It tickles me that this quote came from a YA novel of all places, but in The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Chbosky writes "We accept the love we think we deserve".

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

[ryandrake]

> 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.

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.

[cafard]

During most of my single days, I didn't have to pretend to be poor as fuck. On the other hand, I didn't really need to impress my father.

[selimthegrim]

This man understands why I do what I do. Nobody passed the test so far though. Previous classmates of mine just heckled me and ran and hid when I saw them.

[chipsrafferty]

> But there's something so... so fucking nakedly exhibitionist and narcissistic about these kinds of posts.

You've precisely defined why nobody takes LessWrong seriously.