For some industries such as chemistry and biotech there is little change to be expected.
The self-employed is now able to rapidly develop their ideas while employed reducing their risk and cost.
Per VC, that's right and secondarily it's more difficult to justify earlier funding when one no longer needs to hire a substantial team. I expect the current major VC firms to get even bigger.
I try to address this in the article. I think the same could have been expected of plumbing, electricians, landscaping, etc but through a different means, standardization, the corporations simply don't have a good position.
In this world the neurodivergent is empowered, they no longer are charged with persuasion of their ideas to a team or corporation. They can build their ideas themselves and form a limited partnership with someone with the talents they lack.
Though I make it a point to describe the new economic order without regard to its desirability. However, other authors on the subject (e.g. Lysander Spooner, Rothbard, etc) would be pleased by the development in terms of its social welfare.
Again this piece is not written with GPT, feel free to ask any GPT. Ironically, maybe I should have to increase the appeal of my ideas. I chose my words carefully to communicate my ideas precisely.
GPTs' historically aren't great at identifying their own work; if they could, AI-based cheating wouldn't be the problem it is at present.
Assuming you're the OP, and this is your blog, let me give you some feedback:
* Choosing your words carefully and communicating your ideas clearly are separate skills. You may have chosen the most precise language, but your ability to communicate ideas to as wide an audience as HN is lacking (judging by the comments)
* If you're going to invoke half a dozen rules, principles, laws, and/or proofs in the span of two pages, then you'd better link the associated Wikipedia articles for folks to follow along, at least until you've established a readership baseline. People read blogs for learning or entertainment, and if you're trying to teach a perspective, then you need to include copious links to this material; otherwise, your readership is going to turn into an echo chamber of similar academics (or people cosplaying as such, which is dangerous)
* Your narrative structure leaves a lot to be desired. Are you sharing an opinion piece about a potential AI-energized future? Or are you mocking AI detractors? Or are you digging up old memes? Maybe you're getting into the philosophy angle of capitalism and entrepreneurship? Or perhaps making a judgement about the perceived lack of "startup spirit" of modern workers? I honestly can't tell, because at times it feels like this single piece is touching upon all of them, but not going into anything more than surface-depth about any of them
* As far as reads go, it's a strugglebus. Your blog gives no insight into the author as a person, but the piece reads as if we should already know you and respect your authority on the topic because of credentials. Its sentences meander far too long before stopping, as if you're trying to consolidate complex thoughts that demand a paragraph of context into a single, lengthy, concise sentence - and leaving readers to figure it out on their own time, like a University Professor with tenure.
* Personal nitpick here, but your application of the Pareto Principle to human labor within corporations betrays your inexperience (at best) or your absence of empathy (at worst). More than likely, it displays a profound level of distance from work "in the trenches", and the associated lack of understanding of why corporations are formed, grow, function, struggle, wither, collapse, and die. Talk to more workers, and not just ones at your present company/title/rank/experience level/demographic brackets. Humans are messy creatures, not machines, and assuming they will behave as machines inside other machine-like structures is ignoring the inherent chaos of existence.
Just like the first critique of mine above, the how of communication is just as important as the vocabulary used. Consider your description above with this reworked (organic, AI-free) example:
"Core contributor to mid-size successful startup"
Based on the limited information you gave me in your line, I rewrote it to give off a different tone and vibe. Now, instead of standing atop trophies ("FAANG") and leaderboards ("multi-billion dollar", "1,500 people"), the same description sounds more grounded in reality - a contributor as part of a larger whole, someone who seeks to do the same through their blog as opposed to someone commanding attention based on past glories alone.
This is what I mean when I say you may have chosen your words with specificity, but the way you string them together can have a more outsized impact than the words themselves. It's the same myth that a meal is just the sum of its ingredients, rather than the steps taken, the chaos managed, and the personal touches from experience or wisdom added into it that the recipe didn't cover.
Looks like you felt attacked by OP success/experience.
> This is what I mean when I say you may have chosen your words with specificity, but the way you string them together can have a more outsized impact than the words themselves
This sounds exactly like what you are doing. Your long replies even sound like chatgpt.
Lolz. Not the first time I’ve been accused of botting, but certainly the first time it’s happened in the context of a comment thread. I don’t know if I should savor the compliment that I annoyed you enough to scream into the void of a nested comment thread several layers down without meaningfully contributing to the discourse itself, or be annoyed myself that you’re comparing my bleary-eyed discourse in lieu of sleep to the token-predictive slop of a chatbot.
I had one sentence to work with; you have an entire career to draw from. My straw man rewording was literally just an example of impact through choice of words.
If you’re talking to someone in the startup sphere, the talk of being a founding engineer in a unicorn is excellent! If that’s not the audience you intend to reach, then it’s akin to an automotive designer discussing about how much downforce they generated through a modest angular adjustment to a spoiler design’s leading edge, while in the midst of casual conversation - lost in translation to anyone outside their field.
We would see neither squirrels nor crows since these criticisms miss the forest for the trees. But we can address them.
> This is irrelevant for AI, because people throw more hardware at bigger problems
GAI is a fixed problem which is Solomonoff Induction. Further Amdahl's law is a limitation on neither software nor a super computer.
Both inference and training rely on parallelization, LLM inference has multiple serialization points per layer. Vegh et al 2019 quantifies how Amdahl's law limits success in neural networks[1]. He further states:
"A general misconception (introduced by successors of Amdahl) is to assume that Amdahl’s law is valid for software only". It would apply to a neural network as it does equally to the problem of self-driving cars.
> These two sentences contradict each other
There is no contradiction only a misunderstanding of what "eviscerates" means and even with that incorrect definition resulting in your threshold test, it still remains applicable.
I am new to Amdahl's law, but wouldn't a rearchitecture make it less relevant. For example if instead of growing an LLM that has more to do in parallel, seperate it into agents (maybe a bit like areas of the brain?). Is Amdahls law just a limit for the classic LLM architecture?
I don't think it can ultimately be escaped but the cited Vegh et al exactly proposes that, the bioinspiration, as a means to surpass those limitations.
However, in this article I contend that those limitations have posed little adversity in the field given the success of the latest models. As a result, it may be a bit premature to be concerned about it.
ZIZEK: that AI will be the death of learning & so on; to this, I say NO! My student brings me their essay, which has been written by AI, & I plug it into my grading AI, & we are free! While the 'learning' happens, our superego satisfied, we are free now to learn whatever we want
Yes, but therein lies the rub. Those that know how to learn will benefit. Those that don't will regress, possibly for life depending on when AI is introduced.
This is especially demonstrated in essay writing.
Many students associate essays with busy work because the topics they're asked to write about are boring. When the typical assignment that's given is "read this boring ass book from the 40s that's been in the curriculum for decades without revisiting its application in today's world, then write a 1000-word essay on a topic that's been discussed to death that you couldn't give less of a shit about; points will be deducted for views that stray too far from the norm," then it's absolutely unsurprising that most students will shove this into ChatGPT and call it a day.
On the flip side, when English or composition teachers are forced to assign thess assignments knowing full well that it's a crock of shit, then it is equally unsurprising that they will feed GPT into GPT and call it a day.
Students that know how to learn and are actually interested in becoming better writers will find ways around this. Teachers who have the freedom to design their own curriculums will be more creative about the types of prompts they assign and the books they have their students read.
The common link between the two? Money, of course!
Sure however the vast majority of costs come from the government regulation in the first place. Consumers of course bear the cost, however this doesn't necessarily mean we should remove these expensive regulations, one can argue they are beneficial.
If we assume they are beneficial, this also doesn't mean the government should subsidize it less but instead more to continue to allow the production of drugs. If we artificially require a price, many of these drugs would simply not be developed.
I'm under the persuasion that the future of healthcare is a voucher system to allow the competitive bidding of drugs/insurance to remain as well as the maintenance of the quality and quantity of medical research. Many countries purport to have better medical systems however we find that the American payers subsidize the rest of the world––with the USA producing more medical research than the rest of the world combined.
In a single healthcare system, the prices of drugs deemed essential will skyrocket while others will simply be excluded by the bureau. This then creates a cost on the tax payers through the inflation/excess tax required by the national budget to afford it. While at the same time the single healthcare system has little incentive to improve its efficiency of administration until it's fully deteriorated and governmental intervention promises a revamp which may still be ineffective.
The voucher system allows many insurance companies to exist, allowing the quality of insurance provided treatments to remain through that competition on their varied administrative strategies. While at the same time consumers with varying degrees of medicinal concerns can choose the right programme for themselves––opting to even pay beyond the sum provided by the voucher. This way it's no longer only affordable through a corporate benefit and the buyer group is available instead through a national benefit.
