This reminds me of modern windows having fake panes. They’re just strips that are applied to give the impressions that there are multiple smaller panes because people are used to that and it feels “correct”.
I have to imagine past glassmakers would have been absolutely enthralled by the ability we now have to make uniform, large sheets of glass, but here we are emulating the compromises they had to make because we are used to how it looks.
> They’re just strips that are applied to give the impressions that there are multiple smaller panes because people are used to that and it feels “correct”.
It is more than just 'feeling correct': windows and their various (sub-)elements that make them up (can) change the architectural proportions and how the building is perceived as a whole:
It is similar with columns: they're not just 'tall-and-narrow', but rather have certain proportions and shapes depending on the style and aesthetic/feeling one wishes to convey:
I strongly doubt that multiple smaller panes would have ever become a common style if we could have always made large glass panes. This is a perfect example of people becoming very used to a style forced by a technological limitation that is emulated even after the limitation doesn't exist.
The most worrying thing is that Mullenweg just seems unwell and has created his own reality distortion field where he can no longer see the absurdness and damaging nature of his actions. His behavior reminds me of a cult leader or a celebrity where they surround themselves with only people who do their bidding and gradually slip into this state.
I agree with most of this story, but I really find the assertion that weird nerds are just autistic rather offensive and dismissive. It reminds me way too much of lazy teachers in the 90s insisting students they didn't want to manage were just suffering from ADD and hoping they could just get their parents to dope them up on Ritalin.
Is where we are any good? I think one of the more germane issues with generative AI art is that it is distinctly not creative. It can only regurgitate variations of what it has seen.
This is both extremely powerful and limiting.
An LLM is never going to give you some of the most famous films like "Star Wars" which bounced around before 20th Century Fox finally took a chance on it because they thought Lucas had talent. Is what we want? A society that just uses machines to produce variations of the same thing that already exist all the time? It's hard enough for novel creative projects to succeed.
> Is where we are any good? I think one of the more germane issues with generative AI art is that it is distinctly not creative. It can only regurgitate variations of what it has seen.
Yes, state of the art models like midjourney, sd3 are _really_ good. You are bounded only by your imagination.
The idea that generative AI is only derivative was never an empirical claim, its always been a cope.
It doesn’t matter who the Gerber Baby really is. Society has chosen to associate the Gerber Baby with certain attributes regardless of who the person behind the photo really is, and so it is with Kevin Mitnick. Mitnick, the real person, excelled at social engineering more than any other trait and was arguably subjected to malicious prosecution. But in his later years, there’s a lot of documentation online indicating that he didn’t live up to the myth that grew around him and he was not a pleasant person [1].
People here are mostly reminiscing about Mitnick--the myth, not the man.
I think we'd all be surprised to find out how many "legendary", "amazing", "revolutionary" famous people are not particularly pleasant. You don't achieve greatness by being a sweetheart.
[ftr, I have no idea what his demeanor was; like many, it's quite likely he softened over time.]
Regarding your source: People don't behave consistently all the time. There are probably people who have briefly met you when you were not in a good mood who would say that you are a jerk.
I don't really want to say bad things about someone I respect who just died, but the fact of the matter is that Kevin (especially when he was younger—he mellowed out later) really could be menacing. Combined with the compulsiveness of his nature, that could be unpleasant. It was as if he could not stop hacking and messing with people.
> I also theorize that founders are very social people and they especially typically can't figure out remote management.
I think this is a large part of the problem that isn’t being explicitly pointed out. Extroverts likely hate this style of work and it feels like some folks, instead of really compromising or trying to find an effective model that works with this new reality, just go the safe route. I was happier with the way things were...
Has Musk ever handled the operational aspects of the companies he claims to run? Does he really understand what it takes to make a company _work_?
For instance, my understanding of SpaceX is that he really should be seen as the initial financier of it to chase a crazy idea. Gwynne Shotwell is really the one in charge of day-to-day operations. It's just that Musk shows up for the fun bits and gets all the sound bites in.
I'm not saying that. Have a look at the tours. He seems to be very up on designs for each component of the rockets. What the current status is, tradeoffs of different options.
Probably this means he spends his 30 hours/week of SpaceX time sitting in on technical meetings and the other departments get neglected.
my point is that he is knowledgeable - but the heavy work, the real work is done by the professionals. At best he learns what is going on, at worst he is hindering progress.
I mean he single handedly pulled the future forward in two different industries so far. Just because he is not "well adjusted" on twitter doesn't mean he cannot get shit done.
Single-handedly is when Louis Slotin improved nuclear research safety for all time with the consequence of his failed screwdriver stunt.
What Tesla and SpaceX have done are enormous human undertakings. He did not single-handedly do it by any rational interpretation. The delusional self-confidence he used to get investors to pay for those undertakings is what's about to destroy Twitter.
I think it's obvious that Elon Musk didn't single handedly pull the future forward. He cannot do this without his employees, especially since we know SpaceX is actually mostly ran by the COO Gwyne Shotwell.
I have to imagine past glassmakers would have been absolutely enthralled by the ability we now have to make uniform, large sheets of glass, but here we are emulating the compromises they had to make because we are used to how it looks.