[llmthrow103]

This post is about a specific, complex system that stretches from operating system to the physical world, as well as some philosophical problems.

What you're describing is a dead simple hobby project that could be completed by a complete novice in less than a week before the advent of LLMs.

It's like saying "I'm absolutely blown away by microwaves, I can have a meal hot and ready in just a few minutes with no effort or understanding. I think all culinary schools should have a curriculum that teaches people how to use microwaves effectively."

Maybe the goal of education should be giving people a foundation that they can build on, not make them an expert in something that a low skill ceiling and diminishing returns.

[RangerScience]

I mean - going from “doable in a week with the right mindset” to “doable in a day when I’ve struggled before” is uhhh kinda worth being blown away by

[llmthrow103]

Yeah, great, but also completely irrelevant. Is every post on Hacker News related to AI in any way a place to post anecdotes about AI?

[comeondude]

I’m actually a huge fan of Brett Victor and I felt like he’s kinda missing the dynamic, adaptable nature of AI that allows non-technical people like me to finally access the system layer of computation for our creative ends.

In other words, in many ways, AI (or rather llms) is the very thing that Brett Victor has spent his whole career imagining and creating - a computing interface that closes gap between human imagination and creation. But here, he’s focusing on the negatives while neglecting, IMHO, the vast potential of AI to allow people to connect, create, and express themselves. As in truly having a PERSONAL computer.

At Dynamicland, he was attempting to build a system that non-technical people like me can interface in a way that makes sense to us.

Taking your unnecessarily disparaging microwave analogy - Using CHATGPT, I can understand it, reprogram it, and do fun stuff, like I don’t know - set up a basketball hoop that sets the timer based on how many shots I make, despite having limited or no technical background. Like I can tell chatgpt my crazy vision, and it will give me step by step approach, with proper resources, and respond in a way that I can grok to build this thing.

THIS is why I'm awestruck.

My anecdote is just my personal reaction to the post. Besides, what’s wrong with people expressing themselves freely here?

[throwaway328]

> I’m actually a huge fan of Brett Victor and I felt like he’s kinda missing the dynamic, adaptable nature of AI that allows non-technical people like me to finally access the system layer of computation for our creative ends.

To "grok" something is to understand it on a deep, fundamental level. Following a checklist from an LLM and the thing you're doing eventually working isn't grokking.

To be clear, I'm very glad that you and others can throw together new projects. Your excitement seems genuine, and more excitement in the world is good. And perhaps you'll be one of the miniscule minority who will use LLMs to really get to a deeper level of understanding with new things.

But I wonder if your excitement may be misleading you here and making it harder for you to grok Bret Victor's post - on any level. I don't think Victor is interested in computing in the way you think he is. There's a world of difference between being able to cobble a web project together, and the kinds of philosophical shifts a project like dynamicland is proposing and enacting.

In the interest of people expressing themselves freely, I'd go so far as to say it's particularly surprising to read all this from "an artist". There was a time when being an artist implied the person had reflected and read and thought about larger perspectives across a range of subjects - philosophy, science, religion, etc.

Here, in this instance, I can't help feeling there's some crunchy irony in the fact that a deeply radical (scientifically, artistically, technologically, socially) project like dynamicland is met by an artist excited to be able to plug web services into each other, strongly claiming from the very heart of the cultural slop wars, that the dynamicland people might be confused and maybe LLMs is the real answer.

Respectfully, consider that maybe the perspective from which they're viewing the problem is simply much deeper than what you've been able to grasp so far. I don't mean it disparagingly or cynically, in fact it's great news, you've vistas to explore here!

I suggest reading more from dynamicland directly, and bret's website too, a few of bret's talks, alan kay is very good, there's tons of stuff if you get into it. Don't neglect the history of computing, it's full of amazing ideas.

[throwaway328]

I'm following my own advice there at the end and browsing around a bit more, and one book dynamicland links to on their bookshelf (https://dynamicland.org/2024/Roots/) is "Tools for Thought" (https://www.rheingold.com/texts/tft/) which has this amazing blurb which reminded me of this thread:

> Tools for Thought is an exercise in retrospective futurism; that is, I wrote it in the early 1980s, attempting to look at what the mid 1990s would be like. My odyssey started when I discovered Xerox PARC and Doug Engelbart and realized that all the journalists who had descended upon Silicon Valley were missing the real story. Yes, the tales of teenagers inventing new industries in their garages were good stories. But the idea of the personal computer did not spring full-blown from the mind of Steve Jobs. Indeed, the idea that people could use computers to amplify thought and communication, as tools for intellectual work and social activity, was not an invention of the mainstream computer industry nor orthodox computer science, nor even homebrew computerists. If it wasn't for people like J.C.R. Licklider, Doug Engelbart, Bob Taylor, Alan Kay, it wouldn't have happened. But their work was rooted in older, equally eccentric, equally visionary, work, so I went back to piece together how Boole and Babbage and Turing and von Neumann — especially von Neumann — created the foundations that the later toolbuilders stood upon to create the future we live in today. You can't understand where mind-amplifying technology is going unless you understand where it came from.