The folks who keep the power grid running, write compilers, secure the internet, and design dependable systems don’t get viral fame, but their contributions are far more critical. That imbalance is no small thing; it shapes who gets funded, who feels validated, and who decides to pursue a challenge that doesn’t promise a quick TikTok moment or a crypto-style valuation bump. A complex technological civilization depends on people willing to go deep, to wrestle with fundamentals, to think in decades rather than funding cycles. If the next generation of capable minds concludes that visibility is more rational than depth, we’re not just changing startup culture. You can survive a lot of hype. You can’t survive a steady erosion of mastery.
stego-tech 2 hours ago [-]
It’s not limited to young people, unfortunately. About fifty years ago, executive leadership became far more visible in the public eye and combative with workers, all to juice share prices for their own compensation bumps. Conglomerates built on monstrous estates of interconnected business lines were gradually gutted and slashed to promote price bumps on shares, at the expense of profitable lines of business.
The net result is a (mostly) American business model predicated on Celebrity C-Suites doing highly visible things while those doing the hard work of creating value are shunted into offices and paid less compared to productivity gains over time. It shouldn’t be a surprise that social media and the internet have supercharged this, especially with groups like YC, Softbank, a16z, and other VCs splashing out Capital on flash over substance, exploitation over business fundamentals, “disruption” over societal benefit and symbiosis.
The net result is a growing schism of resentment by those who do the work towards those who get the credit, glory, and reward, versus those who bask in stardom and truly believe they can replace the perceived entitlement of labor wholesale with an instant gratification machine and somehow survive the resulting societal collapse such a device would bring about.
saulpw 14 minutes ago [-]
It's charitable to frame this as resentment towards capital who gets the "credit". I'm sure people would grumble about this regardless, but the real resentment stems from them systematically eroding our ability to afford housing, healthcare, and retirement.
hdtx54 2 hours ago [-]
You think the power grid fell out of the head of some master craftsman thinking in decades? They dont teach the history of science for various reasons, but its basically a ledger of how over rated 3 inch chimp brain intelligence is. The power grid is thing of beauty. Today. But the path to that Beauty is one train wreck after another. Boiler explosions that kill hundreds. Wiring that burns down towns. Transformers that cook themselves and everyone around them. Hurricanes that blow half the grid into the sea in 5 minutes etc etc etc. We learn things the hard way. And always have. There was never any master plan. Beauty happened inspite of it with huge hidden costs that only historians tabulate and very few have the time and luxury to study. Individual Mastery is not magic. Because complexity and unpredictability in the universe is way more than what one 3 inch chimp brain can fully comprehend or ever handle. But we create more problems by pretending limits to what chimps can do dont exist. Look up Theory of Bounded Rationality.
bee_rider 2 hours ago [-]
Anyway, the original “power grid” guy was not some master craftsman or engineer, he was the original STEM influencer: Edison. He also popularized short videos.
foruhar 31 minutes ago [-]
Tesla was the real power grid guy. The scope of his invention from the generators at Niagara Falls power generation to the transformers to the motors is pretty impressive. More so given that he was eventually given the patents (originally issued to Marconi) for radio transmission.
Steinmetz contributed heavily to AC systems theory which helped understand and expand transmission. while Scott contributed a lot to transformer theory and design (I have to find his Transformer book.)
2 hours ago [-]
moritzwarhier 48 minutes ago [-]
Very valuable point!
In addition to the limits of human planning and intellect, I'd also add incentives:
as cynical as it sounds, you won't get rewarded for building a more safe, robust and reliable machine or system, until it is agreed upon that the risks or problems you address actually occur, and that the costs for prevention actually pays off.
For example, there would be no insurances without laws and governments, because no person or company ever would pay into a promise that has never been held.
HoldOnAMinute 37 minutes ago [-]
It would all be undergrounded and made resilient, if it weren't for perverse incentives.
abraxas 1 hours ago [-]
> You can’t survive a steady erosion of mastery.
That sounds like an onset of a certain type of dark age. Eventually the shiny bits will too fall off when the underlying foundation crumbles. It would be massively ironic if the age of the "electronic brains" brought about the demise of technological advancement.
MagicMoonlight 51 minutes ago [-]
Just look at current software.
Windows is maintained by morons, and gets shitter every year.
Linux is still written by a couple of people.
Once people like that die, nobody will know how to write operating systems. I certainly couldn’t remake Linux. There’s no way anyone born after 2000 could, their brains are mush.
All software is just shit piled on top of shit. Backends in JavaScript, interfaces which use an entire web browser behind the scenes…
Eventually you’ll have lead engineers at Apple who don’t know what computers really are anymore, but just keep trying to slop more JavaScript in layer 15 of their OS.
piperswe 38 minutes ago [-]
Young people's brains have always been mush, according to the older generation. Your brain is mush according to those older than you. The term for this is juvenoia, and it's as old as humanity.
saulpw 11 minutes ago [-]
And yet, when they worried about what television would do to a generation of brains, they were right. The Boomers, as a generation, never became wise, and their brains are mushier than ever.
RealityVoid 42 minutes ago [-]
> I certainly couldn’t remake Linux. There’s no way anyone born after 2000 could, their brains are mush.
This is certainly false. There are plenty of young people that are incredibly talented. I worked with some of them. And you can probably name some from the open source projects you follow.
oytis 21 minutes ago [-]
> Linux is still written by a couple of people.
How is that? It's easily the software project with the largest number of contributors ever (I don't know if it's true, but it could be true).
HoldOnAMinute 38 minutes ago [-]
Windows is being deliberately enshittified by rent-seekers.
Rent-seeking and Promo-seeking is the only motivation for the people with the power.
None of that class wants to make a better product, or make life better or easier for the people.
MarceliusK 3 minutes ago [-]
The scary part is that you can't just "hire mastery" on demand. You have to grow it
iugtmkbdfil834 3 hours ago [-]
I thought about it recently. Not that long ago, it was perfectly reasonable to be as invisible as possible. But now, this strategy is not only not easy, but also has drawbacks, when compared to being visible ( and understood as useful by the masses ). I don't like it. It effectively means we all need PR management.
keiferski 2 hours ago [-]
This is one consequence of removing all gatekeepers. Previously you’d only need to be known by your manager and his manager, or in the arts, by a small group of tastemakers.
Nowadays there are no tastemakers, and thus you need to be a public figure in order to even find your audience / niche in the first place.
mjr00 2 hours ago [-]
> Not that long ago, it was perfectly reasonable to be as invisible as possible. But now, this strategy is not only not easy, but also has drawbacks, when compared to being visible ( and understood as useful by the masses ).
That's always been the case depending on what you're trying to do, though. If you want to be Corporation Employee #41,737, or work for the government, you don't need a "personal brand"; just a small social network who knows your skills is good enough. If you're in your early 20s and trying to get 9 figures of investment in your AI startup, yeah you need to project an image as Roy from the article is doing.
It's amplified a bit in the social media world, but remember that only ~0.5% of people actively comment or post on social media. 99.5% of the world is invisible and doing just fine.
rglover 2 hours ago [-]
That's a force you move away from, not towards.
Manfred 2 hours ago [-]
Maybe publicly invisible, but a personal network and resume have always been important in a career.
rglover 3 hours ago [-]
This idea seems to be lost on a lot of people. It's a shame to see mastery (and by extension, quality) becoming an anachronism and frankly, terrifying. There's a certain hubris associated with all of this that seems to be blinding people to the reality that, no, you actually do want humans around who actually know how things are put together and work.
That being dismissed as a "nice to have" is like watching people waving flags while strapping c4 to civilizational progress.
LearnYouALisp 1 hours ago [-]
Have you seen "Tech Ingredients"? People like that and Dutch scientist/engineer who runs "Huygens Optics"
0_____0 1 hours ago [-]
I love Huygens Optica, but the mastery of one rather old Dutch man isn't really much of a counterexample when we're talking about the generation that is coming up behind us.
LearnYouALisp 1 hours ago [-]
No that is an example of the former
gamerson 2 hours ago [-]
Just wanna say, I love this paragraph so much, I created HN account just to upvote it.
zer00eyz 2 hours ago [-]
> The folks who keep the power grid running ...
I find this a great choice for an opener. If linesman across the nation go on strike, its a week before the power is off everywhere. A lot of people seem to think the world is simple, and a reading of 'I, Pencil' would go far enlighten them as to how complicated things are.
> secure the internet...
Here, again, are we doing a good job? We keep stacking up turtles, layers and layers of abstraction rather than replace things at the root to eliminate the host of problems that we have.
Look at docker, Look at flat packs... We have turned these into methods to "install software" (now with added features) because it was easier to stack another turtle than it was to fix the underlying issues...
I am a fan of the LLM derived tools, use them every day, love them. I dont buy into the AGI hype, and I think it is ultimately harmful to our industry. At some point were going to need more back to basics efforts (like system d) to replace and refine some of these tools from the bottom up rather than add yet another layer to the stack.
I also think that agents are going to destroy business models: cancel this service I cant use, get this information out of this walled garden, summarize the news so I dont see all the ad's.
The AI bubble will "burst", much like the Dotcom one. We're going to see a lot of interesting and great things come out of the other side. It's those with "agency" and "motivation" to make those real foundational changes that are going to find success.
We have AI now. The machines will manage their own infrastructure.
FloorEgg 2 hours ago [-]
I was enjoying the article until I got to this paragraph:
> Individual intelligence will mean nothing once we have superhuman AI, at which point the difference between an obscenely talented giga-nerd and an ordinary six-pack-drinking bozo will be about as meaningful as the difference between any two ants. If what you do involves anything related to the human capacity for reason, reflection, insight, creativity, or thought, you will be meat for the coltan mines.
Believing this feels incredibly unwise to me. I think it's going to do more damage than the AI itself will.
To any impressionable students reading this: the most valuable and important thing you can learn will be to think critically and communicate well. No AI can take it away from you, and the more powerful AI will get the more you will be able to harness it's potential. Don't let these people saying this ahit discourage you from building a good life.
drivebyhooting 35 minutes ago [-]
This part was a long description of the zeitgeist in SF; it was not meant to be the author’s own opinion.
jcgrillo 2 hours ago [-]
In the context of the rest of the piece, I read this as sarcasm. The author is making fun of the species of narcissistic silly con valley techbro who actually believes such nonsense.
moritzwarhier 15 minutes ago [-]
There's no worth in sarcastically repeating memes like "giga nerd" or whatever except for propagating this line if thinking / the meme.
Imagination knows no negation.
FloorEgg 2 hours ago [-]
Ah, I struggle with sarcasm sometimes and I was a bit distracted while reading. I'll give it another chance.
zozbot234 1 hours ago [-]
It's a really bad take because AI is already "superhuman" in general knowledge, but it still has trouble figuring out whether I should drive or walk to the car wash place.
moritzwarhier 9 minutes ago [-]
Declaring something as "superhuman" requires a hierarchy of inherent human value.
I'm not saying this for social reasons, just for the definition:
"superhuman intelligence" at what?
Calculations? Puzzles? Sudokus?
Or more like...
image classification? ("is this a thief?", "is this a rope?", "is this a medical professional?", "is this a tree?")
Oh, applying the former to the latter would be a pretty stupid category error.
It's almost as if people had this figured out centuries ago...
iugtmkbdfil834 3 hours ago [-]
<< The highly agentic are people who just do things. They don’t timidly wait for permission or consensus; they drive like bulldozers through whatever’s in their way.
I genuinely like the author's style ( not in the quote above; its here for a different reason ). It paints a picture in a way that I still am unable to. I suck at stories.
Anyway, back to the quote. If that is true, then we are in pickle. Claw and its security issues is just a symptom of that 'break things' spirit. And yes, this has been true for a while, but we keep increasing both in terms of speed and scale. I am not sure what the breaking point is, but at certain point real world may balk.
Seeing a Substack email collection box where you have to agree to whatever its terms are to subscribe with a skip to content link of "No, I'm a coward" is... an experience. I'll take your word he's an excellent writer, if there's an RSS feed maybe I'll subscribe.
dqv 2 hours ago [-]
Oh, I just edited it with developer tools to "No thank you, and I'm brave" so that clicking it wouldn't turn me into a coward
>The city is temperate and brightly colored, with plenty of pleasant trees, but on every corner it speaks to you in an aggressively alien nonsense. Here the world automatically assumes that instead of wanting food or drinks or a new phone or car, what you want is some kind of arcane B2B service for your startup. You are not a passive consumer. You are making something.
I recently traveled to San Francisco and as an outsider this was pretty much the reaction I had.
easton 3 hours ago [-]
I've been to SF three times, and each time the oddest thing was going down 101 from the airport and seeing cURL commands and "you sped past that just like we sped past Snowflake" and such on billboards. It's like being on another planet where everyone is at work.
(on the other hand, in DC there's ads on the metro for new engine upgrades for fighter jets, and i've gotten used to that.)
esafak 2 hours ago [-]
And in LA, every billboard is about Hollywood. It's something you just have to take in your stride.
I do get that it is not nice to be constantly reminded of work. Trees would make a nicer view.
I visited L.A. in 2023 and the thing that shocked me was how many billboards were for products that I only ever heard advertised on podcasts. MeUndies, for example.
jcgrillo 2 hours ago [-]
I don't miss billboards. Cows, trees, mountains, and lumberyards make better scenery.
Abstract_Typist 47 minutes ago [-]
The trees are canonical though.
I think that I shall never see
A billboard lovely as a tree
Indeed, unless the billboards fall
I’ll never see a tree at all.
Song of the Open Road - Ogden Nash
01100011 52 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
pnathan 36 minutes ago [-]
Great article.
I do have a deep fondness for SF billboards being building-stuff oriented. I don't care for consumerism.
The vapidity of the products created is remarkable, however.
MarceliusK 10 minutes ago [-]
I'm skeptical that this fully replaces thinking, though. It may replace certain forms of effort, but historically every increase in leverage just shifts where the bottleneck is
rootnod3 2 hours ago [-]
This hits especially hard for projects like OlenBSD and FreeBSD. The unsung heroes.
Linux gets some fame and recognition, meanwhile OpenBSD and FreeBSD are the ones they power routers, CDNs and so many other cool shit while also being legit good systems that even deserve attention for the desktop.
doctor_blood 2 hours ago [-]
Kriss doesn't touch on the deeper issue of why investors keep giving money to people that openly advertise themselves as con artists.
FloorEgg 2 hours ago [-]
Building a successful startup is very hard, and not just in the "it's a lot of hard work" sense, but also in terms of making good decisions. For the average person who went to school and worked in some other industry/capacity, the good decisions are very counterintuitive.
Most VCs have no idea how to accuratly judge startups based on their core merit, or how to make good decision in startups (though they may think they do), so instead they focus on things like "will this founder be able to hype up this startup and sell the next round so I can mark it up on my books".
marcosdumay 1 hours ago [-]
So... You think it's because the VCs are conning their investors and those con-man are the best extend and pretend opportunities?
I can believe in that. But just a couple of years ago it was clearly happening because the VCs wanted those people to sell the companies into some mark and return real money to them. I wonder when did the investors became the marks?
rpcope1 45 minutes ago [-]
I mean whenever things like the Saudi sovereign wealth fund and SoftBank came into existence. They've been the biggest marks to unload your dumbest equity into for as long as I've been paying attention (so at least 10-15 years now), and at least as long as Jim Cramer and his ilk have been hyping dog shit IPOs to drop on clueless retail.
I immediately heard this as well. Great song, great album!
keiferski 2 hours ago [-]
The strangest thing about all of this to me is how contemporary SF seems to have absorbed basically none of the city's previous culture. You can detect the commercial, artistic, cultural histories of NYC in the various industries there, from media to finance. Ditto for LA, or London, or Paris.
In SF though, it’s as if the previous culture of the place has just been overwritten entirely. Hard to believe that it’s the same city which Kerouac, the Beats or Hippies ran around in. Or even the historically wealthy but cultural old money class, like Lewis Lapham’s family, or Michael Douglas’s character in The Game. Nope, all gone, and certainly no one there has ever read On the Road.
I suppose you could probably just blame this on how the people at the top behave: totally uninterested in funding culture, unlike the billionaires of yesteryear that built concert halls and libraries. And so a city which is hyper focused on one economic activity has no space for anything else.
benlivengood 31 minutes ago [-]
Hey, I had to read On The Road once for college, and I am currently sitting in SF.
To be fair to Jack Kerouac, I was young when I read it but even at my advanced age I don't think I want to reread it.
Also, the old hippie culture sort of moved out of SF and into the surrounding bay, I think especially toward East Bay.
maxwell 1 hours ago [-]
> "We're big believers in protein," Roy said. "It's impossible to get fat at Cluely. Nothing here has any fat."
Clueless.
pibaker 53 minutes ago [-]
I hope they have fiber or, failing that, miralax.
littlexsparkee 1 hours ago [-]
The brain needs fat to function - that explains a lot
maxwell 1 hours ago [-]
Sounds like they're sitting around eating rabbits wondering why they're starving, or just fill up on sugar when no one's looking.
Fat was demonized to push sugar. "Protein" was then pushed because you can just load up stuff like "protein bars" with sugar.
butterbomb 1 hours ago [-]
These people will be your new lords lmao
maxwell 59 minutes ago [-]
Please, they're ngmi with no fat. The unhealthy frat boy office sounds like a throwback to the early '10s. What woman would work there? They seem poised to crash and burn out.
Historical aristocracy were defined by eating meat, while their subjects ate grain. "Beef" for the Normans, "cows" raised and slaughtered by the Anglo-Saxons.
melody_calling 11 minutes ago [-]
They have a table full of Labubus though. Women love those.
141205 1 hours ago [-]
Great article. I recently went through Crying of Lot 49 by Pynchon; the sequence of eccentric personalities in this article reminded me of a similar section that Pynchon has in the bay area. Unfortunately the personages interviewed here are not only real but climb beyond any fictional parody.
lordleft 3 hours ago [-]
I read Sam Kriss' substack and he's a wildly unique and talented writer.
bogrollben 3 hours ago [-]
agreed - I was shocked how quickly I became immersed reading this relatively simple story.
cleandreams 3 hours ago [-]
To be fair SF has had incomprehensible (to normies) billboards since at least the early 90's.
advisedwang 1 hours ago [-]
> Not long before I arrived in the Bay Area, I’d been involved in a minor but intense dispute with the rationalist community over a piece of fiction I’d written that I’d failed to properly label as fiction
Anyone familiar with what work this is referring to?
devinplatt 31 minutes ago [-]
Sounds self-referencial
functionmouse 2 hours ago [-]
We're doomed
rkarhg 55 minutes ago [-]
Consumers have accepted any addictive non-essential or useless web app until 2023. This time CEOs like Pichai and Nadella are going too far.
There is a red line and it is AI. People viscerally hate it and pushing it will just make people question whether they need computers or the Internet at all (hint, they do not).
CEOs fell validated by the mediocre psychopath parts of their developers who always push the latest fad in order to gain an advantage and control better developers. Fads generally last about two years, and this is it.
It will be very gratifying if the AI hubris is Silicon Valley's downfall and completely needlessly ruins the industry just because the same CEOs who read a couple of science fiction books and had rocket envy now have AI envy.
bakugo 3 hours ago [-]
> The cafés of San Francisco are full of highly paid tech workers clattering away on their keyboards; if you peer at their screens to get a closer look, you’ll generally find them copying and pasting material from a ChatGPT window.
Witnessed this first hand on the train the other day. A woman on her laptop. On the left half of the screen, Microsoft Word. On the right, ChatGPT. Text being dragged directly from one to the other.
I'm not sure how to feel about the fact that people with useless bullshit jobs have found a way to become even more useless than they already were before. It's impressive, in a way.
xg15 2 hours ago [-]
I had always thought that Kai Lentit's characters were at least somewhat exaggerated and not a 1:1 copy of the real thing...
climike 2 hours ago [-]
Not sure about the end of thinking, would say that this is the start of managing ever more stochastic systems
3 hours ago [-]
i_love_retros 3 hours ago [-]
The description of cluely's office makes me think of Sugar Ape magazine in Nathan barley.
andsoitis 4 hours ago [-]
AI can’t function without instructions from humans, but an increasing number of humans seem incapable of functioning without AI.
booleandilemma 3 hours ago [-]
A really weird symbiotic relationship.
I'm glad I went to school when people learned how to think.
littlexsparkee 3 hours ago [-]
It'll benefit established folks as the pipeline withers but at the expense of society - things were already sufficiently borked before this phenomenon.
john_strinlai 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
analog8374 3 hours ago [-]
Does it become circular?
A 2-cycle ouroboros. Man-machine-man-etc. Consuming each-other's secretions. Forever.
ai_ai 2 hours ago [-]
I had an AI summarize this article, and it said it's super pessimistic. It’s basically arguing that summarizing is a bad idea. yet I did it. ( I am happy )
FrankWilhoit 3 hours ago [-]
Devolution.
analog8374 3 hours ago [-]
Not necessarily stoned but mutatious.
FatherOfCurses 3 hours ago [-]
> "The future won’t reward effort. It’ll reward leverage." (From the Cluely ad)
JFC kill me now that is NOT a future I want to live in.
littlexsparkee 1 hours ago [-]
you can fudge it for a while...but not forever. i worry about what kind of message this sends young minds though.
qgin 2 hours ago [-]
Has the world ever rewarded effort?
krapp 2 hours ago [-]
No. Not once in the entire history of the human race, from the time we were dwelling in caves to today, not in any tribe, village, hamlet, city, state, kingdom or nation, in no culture or circumstance, has effort ever been rewarded.
It's weird that homo sapiens sapiens has been around for approximately 300,000 years and it's never happened once. Not even once.
butterbomb 3 hours ago [-]
This became clear to me over the last few years. We are quickly returning to a world of entrenched social hierarchy where there are lords and peasants and little room even for social mobility.
With the corpse of meritocracy too rotted to deny at this point the elite simply seem to have run out of lies for placating the people.
Or, more likely the people are so sickeningly impotent, that’s there’s no need for the lies anymore. The new aristocracy will prevail over liberalism and everything the west lied of being part of the their values for years.
_DeadFred_ 27 minutes ago [-]
The west had been fighting this since it's founding.
“If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.”
― Ulysses S. Grant
AtlasBarfed 2 hours ago [-]
That ultimately happens from entrenched geopolitical situations as well.
However, I think we are entering an age of geopolitical chaos. And that will be a darwinian struggle of functioning governance systems.
munificent 2 hours ago [-]
Beautiful article.
I think the "agency" the article talks about is really just "willingness to take risks". And the reason some people are high outliers on that scale is a combination of:
* Coming from such a level of privilege that they will be completely fine even if they lose over and over again.
* Willingness to push any losses onto other undeserving people without experiencing guilt.
* A psychological compulsion towards impulsive behavior and inability to think about long-term consequences.
In short, rich selfish sociopaths.
Some amount of risk-taking is necessary for innovation. But the level we are seeing today is clearly unsustainable and destructive to the fabric of society. It's the difference between confining a series of little bangs to produce an internal combustion engine versus just throwing hand grenades around the public square. The willingness to take chances needs to be surrounded by a structure that minimizes the blast radius of failure.
myth_drannon 36 minutes ago [-]
That's all satire, right? I don't believe the author describes a reality, even in a sarcastic way.
kevincloudsec 1 hours ago [-]
the article treats agency like it's new but founders have always been delusional risk takers. the difference is VCs used to demand a working prototype before writing the check
csb6 41 minutes ago [-]
It seems people have figured out that sociopathy and self-promotion are rewarded in the current culture and that being a con artist has essentially no consequences anymore. And all of it is done by ambitious people who are p-zombies, lacking an inner life or curiosity about anything but how to make more money.
AIorNot 27 minutes ago [-]
I mean is it any different from 15 years ago?
Silicon Valley has been a parody of itself for long time now
"What I discovered, though, is that behind all these small complaints, there’s something much more serious. Roy Lee is not like other people. He belongs to a new and possibly permanent overclass. One of the pervasive new doctrines of Silicon Valley is that we’re in the early stages of a bifurcation event. Some people will do incredibly well in the new AI era. They will become rich and powerful beyond anything we can currently imagine. But other people—a lot of other people—will become useless. They will be consigned to the same miserable fate as the people currently muttering on the streets of San Francisco, cold and helpless in a world they no longer understand. The skills that could lift you out of the new permanent underclass are not the skills that mattered before. For a long time, the tech industry liked to think of itself as a meritocracy: it rewarded qualities like intelligence, competence, and expertise. But all that barely matters anymore. Even at big firms like Google, a quarter of the code is now written by AI. Individual intelligence will mean nothing once we have superhuman AI, at which point the difference between an obscenely talented giga-nerd and an ordinary six-pack-drinking bozo will be about as meaningful as the difference between any two ants. If what you do involves anything related to the human capacity for reason, reflection, insight, creativity, or thought, you will be meat for the coltan mines."
What people really think about Silicon Valley. Not so fun to devalue people now is it? Tech is biggest group of assholes.
Throaway1982 3 hours ago [-]
It's all about the pathetic rationalization we have placed on greed and profit. We can make millions redundant with AI and still have a social safety net that keeps society stable and healthy.
But no, that wouldn't be "fair" to the people who generate millions of net worth every 5 minute.
anonym29 3 hours ago [-]
If you could confiscate 100% of the assets of every billionaire in the country, and sell all of them for market rate without putting any downward pressure on prices at all, that sum would not fund 10 months of the federal government's current spending levels, and even less if you wanted new programs.
smallmancontrov 3 hours ago [-]
If you cured 100% of all cancer it would only reduce US deaths by 20%. Clearly we should conclude that cancer isn't a problem and isn't worth curing, and also that heart disease and unintentional injuries and so on are also not problems and also not worth trying to fix.
cle 3 hours ago [-]
GP didn't say it's not a problem and not worth fixing. They're claiming this is not a good fix.
smallmancontrov 2 hours ago [-]
They invented a dumb fix and complained that it wasn't good. Or, since we're being artistic in this thread: pulled a straw man out of their ass and complained that it smelled foul.
I did the same with cancer/mortality to demonstrate the same trick in a setting where its flaws were more obvious. It's true that I said the quiet part out loud in a way that the post I was mocking did not, but the quiet part is especially important to debunk so I make no apology for doing so.
2 hours ago [-]
jayd16 2 hours ago [-]
Once we did that we'd have a lot less personal influence over that spending budget, at least.
But focusing on current assets and not accumulation of wealth is misleading. You'd also have to allocate the ongoing wealth accumulation to get a better sense of things.
elictronic 3 hours ago [-]
You could make 900 people go from billionaires to high net worth individuals and nearly fund the exorbitant spending of the US government that directly supports 330 million people for a year.
I think you might be overselling how good that is.
_DeadFred_ 18 minutes ago [-]
Trump has added 2 trillion to the debt with today's Supreme Court decision, while giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy.
The Republican policy for 40 years had been to create unsustainable and unworkable Federal government funding/spending instead of to work to creating a working, fiscally sane Federal government. It's hard to build a working government in a two party system when one side is malicious/duplicitous.
This article is a portrait of three Sociopathic Zoomers : the twitter poster, the cheating app guy and the teenage scammer. All three are net negatives to society.
abejinaru 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
jeffbee 3 hours ago [-]
Wordcel backlash, basically.
co_king_5 2 hours ago [-]
awe, poor widdle baby is upset because he doesn't know how to read
john_strinlai 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Rendered at 18:47:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
The net result is a (mostly) American business model predicated on Celebrity C-Suites doing highly visible things while those doing the hard work of creating value are shunted into offices and paid less compared to productivity gains over time. It shouldn’t be a surprise that social media and the internet have supercharged this, especially with groups like YC, Softbank, a16z, and other VCs splashing out Capital on flash over substance, exploitation over business fundamentals, “disruption” over societal benefit and symbiosis.
The net result is a growing schism of resentment by those who do the work towards those who get the credit, glory, and reward, versus those who bask in stardom and truly believe they can replace the perceived entitlement of labor wholesale with an instant gratification machine and somehow survive the resulting societal collapse such a device would bring about.
Steinmetz contributed heavily to AC systems theory which helped understand and expand transmission. while Scott contributed a lot to transformer theory and design (I have to find his Transformer book.)
In addition to the limits of human planning and intellect, I'd also add incentives:
as cynical as it sounds, you won't get rewarded for building a more safe, robust and reliable machine or system, until it is agreed upon that the risks or problems you address actually occur, and that the costs for prevention actually pays off.
For example, there would be no insurances without laws and governments, because no person or company ever would pay into a promise that has never been held.
That sounds like an onset of a certain type of dark age. Eventually the shiny bits will too fall off when the underlying foundation crumbles. It would be massively ironic if the age of the "electronic brains" brought about the demise of technological advancement.
Windows is maintained by morons, and gets shitter every year.
Linux is still written by a couple of people.
Once people like that die, nobody will know how to write operating systems. I certainly couldn’t remake Linux. There’s no way anyone born after 2000 could, their brains are mush.
All software is just shit piled on top of shit. Backends in JavaScript, interfaces which use an entire web browser behind the scenes…
Eventually you’ll have lead engineers at Apple who don’t know what computers really are anymore, but just keep trying to slop more JavaScript in layer 15 of their OS.
This is certainly false. There are plenty of young people that are incredibly talented. I worked with some of them. And you can probably name some from the open source projects you follow.
How is that? It's easily the software project with the largest number of contributors ever (I don't know if it's true, but it could be true).
Rent-seeking and Promo-seeking is the only motivation for the people with the power.
None of that class wants to make a better product, or make life better or easier for the people.
Nowadays there are no tastemakers, and thus you need to be a public figure in order to even find your audience / niche in the first place.
That's always been the case depending on what you're trying to do, though. If you want to be Corporation Employee #41,737, or work for the government, you don't need a "personal brand"; just a small social network who knows your skills is good enough. If you're in your early 20s and trying to get 9 figures of investment in your AI startup, yeah you need to project an image as Roy from the article is doing.
It's amplified a bit in the social media world, but remember that only ~0.5% of people actively comment or post on social media. 99.5% of the world is invisible and doing just fine.
That being dismissed as a "nice to have" is like watching people waving flags while strapping c4 to civilizational progress.
I find this a great choice for an opener. If linesman across the nation go on strike, its a week before the power is off everywhere. A lot of people seem to think the world is simple, and a reading of 'I, Pencil' would go far enlighten them as to how complicated things are.
> secure the internet...
Here, again, are we doing a good job? We keep stacking up turtles, layers and layers of abstraction rather than replace things at the root to eliminate the host of problems that we have.
Look at docker, Look at flat packs... We have turned these into methods to "install software" (now with added features) because it was easier to stack another turtle than it was to fix the underlying issues...
I am a fan of the LLM derived tools, use them every day, love them. I dont buy into the AGI hype, and I think it is ultimately harmful to our industry. At some point were going to need more back to basics efforts (like system d) to replace and refine some of these tools from the bottom up rather than add yet another layer to the stack.
I also think that agents are going to destroy business models: cancel this service I cant use, get this information out of this walled garden, summarize the news so I dont see all the ad's.
The AI bubble will "burst", much like the Dotcom one. We're going to see a lot of interesting and great things come out of the other side. It's those with "agency" and "motivation" to make those real foundational changes that are going to find success.
> Individual intelligence will mean nothing once we have superhuman AI, at which point the difference between an obscenely talented giga-nerd and an ordinary six-pack-drinking bozo will be about as meaningful as the difference between any two ants. If what you do involves anything related to the human capacity for reason, reflection, insight, creativity, or thought, you will be meat for the coltan mines.
Believing this feels incredibly unwise to me. I think it's going to do more damage than the AI itself will.
To any impressionable students reading this: the most valuable and important thing you can learn will be to think critically and communicate well. No AI can take it away from you, and the more powerful AI will get the more you will be able to harness it's potential. Don't let these people saying this ahit discourage you from building a good life.
Imagination knows no negation.
I'm not saying this for social reasons, just for the definition:
"superhuman intelligence" at what?
Calculations? Puzzles? Sudokus?
Or more like...
image classification? ("is this a thief?", "is this a rope?", "is this a medical professional?", "is this a tree?")
Oh, applying the former to the latter would be a pretty stupid category error.
It's almost as if people had this figured out centuries ago...
I genuinely like the author's style ( not in the quote above; its here for a different reason ). It paints a picture in a way that I still am unable to. I suck at stories.
Anyway, back to the quote. If that is true, then we are in pickle. Claw and its security issues is just a symptom of that 'break things' spirit. And yes, this has been true for a while, but we keep increasing both in terms of speed and scale. I am not sure what the breaking point is, but at certain point real world may balk.
I recently traveled to San Francisco and as an outsider this was pretty much the reaction I had.
(on the other hand, in DC there's ads on the metro for new engine upgrades for fighter jets, and i've gotten used to that.)
I do get that it is not nice to be constantly reminded of work. Trees would make a nicer view.
I do have a deep fondness for SF billboards being building-stuff oriented. I don't care for consumerism.
The vapidity of the products created is remarkable, however.
Linux gets some fame and recognition, meanwhile OpenBSD and FreeBSD are the ones they power routers, CDNs and so many other cool shit while also being legit good systems that even deserve attention for the desktop.
Most VCs have no idea how to accuratly judge startups based on their core merit, or how to make good decision in startups (though they may think they do), so instead they focus on things like "will this founder be able to hype up this startup and sell the next round so I can mark it up on my books".
I can believe in that. But just a couple of years ago it was clearly happening because the VCs wanted those people to sell the companies into some mark and return real money to them. I wonder when did the investors became the marks?
Now consider Reddit.
On r/hacking people tend to understand the danger of mindlessness and support war against it: https://www.reddit.com/r/hacking/comments/1r55wvg/poison_fou...
In constrast r/programming is full of, let's call them "bot-heads", who are all-in on mindlessness: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1r8oxt9/poison...
A project that you spam in every of your comments.
https://youtu.be/CmJYZ1NIn1Y?t=150
In SF though, it’s as if the previous culture of the place has just been overwritten entirely. Hard to believe that it’s the same city which Kerouac, the Beats or Hippies ran around in. Or even the historically wealthy but cultural old money class, like Lewis Lapham’s family, or Michael Douglas’s character in The Game. Nope, all gone, and certainly no one there has ever read On the Road.
I suppose you could probably just blame this on how the people at the top behave: totally uninterested in funding culture, unlike the billionaires of yesteryear that built concert halls and libraries. And so a city which is hyper focused on one economic activity has no space for anything else.
To be fair to Jack Kerouac, I was young when I read it but even at my advanced age I don't think I want to reread it.
Also, the old hippie culture sort of moved out of SF and into the surrounding bay, I think especially toward East Bay.
Clueless.
Fat was demonized to push sugar. "Protein" was then pushed because you can just load up stuff like "protein bars" with sugar.
Historical aristocracy were defined by eating meat, while their subjects ate grain. "Beef" for the Normans, "cows" raised and slaughtered by the Anglo-Saxons.
Anyone familiar with what work this is referring to?
There is a red line and it is AI. People viscerally hate it and pushing it will just make people question whether they need computers or the Internet at all (hint, they do not).
CEOs fell validated by the mediocre psychopath parts of their developers who always push the latest fad in order to gain an advantage and control better developers. Fads generally last about two years, and this is it.
It will be very gratifying if the AI hubris is Silicon Valley's downfall and completely needlessly ruins the industry just because the same CEOs who read a couple of science fiction books and had rocket envy now have AI envy.
Witnessed this first hand on the train the other day. A woman on her laptop. On the left half of the screen, Microsoft Word. On the right, ChatGPT. Text being dragged directly from one to the other.
I'm not sure how to feel about the fact that people with useless bullshit jobs have found a way to become even more useless than they already were before. It's impressive, in a way.
I'm glad I went to school when people learned how to think.
A 2-cycle ouroboros. Man-machine-man-etc. Consuming each-other's secretions. Forever.
JFC kill me now that is NOT a future I want to live in.
It's weird that homo sapiens sapiens has been around for approximately 300,000 years and it's never happened once. Not even once.
With the corpse of meritocracy too rotted to deny at this point the elite simply seem to have run out of lies for placating the people.
Or, more likely the people are so sickeningly impotent, that’s there’s no need for the lies anymore. The new aristocracy will prevail over liberalism and everything the west lied of being part of the their values for years.
“If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.” ― Ulysses S. Grant
However, I think we are entering an age of geopolitical chaos. And that will be a darwinian struggle of functioning governance systems.
I think the "agency" the article talks about is really just "willingness to take risks". And the reason some people are high outliers on that scale is a combination of:
* Coming from such a level of privilege that they will be completely fine even if they lose over and over again.
* Willingness to push any losses onto other undeserving people without experiencing guilt.
* A psychological compulsion towards impulsive behavior and inability to think about long-term consequences.
In short, rich selfish sociopaths.
Some amount of risk-taking is necessary for innovation. But the level we are seeing today is clearly unsustainable and destructive to the fabric of society. It's the difference between confining a series of little bangs to produce an internal combustion engine versus just throwing hand grenades around the public square. The willingness to take chances needs to be surrounded by a structure that minimizes the blast radius of failure.
Silicon Valley has been a parody of itself for long time now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzAdXyPYKQo
What people really think about Silicon Valley. Not so fun to devalue people now is it? Tech is biggest group of assholes.
I did the same with cancer/mortality to demonstrate the same trick in a setting where its flaws were more obvious. It's true that I said the quiet part out loud in a way that the post I was mocking did not, but the quiet part is especially important to debunk so I make no apology for doing so.
But focusing on current assets and not accumulation of wealth is misleading. You'd also have to allocate the ongoing wealth accumulation to get a better sense of things.
I think you might be overselling how good that is.
The Republican policy for 40 years had been to create unsustainable and unworkable Federal government funding/spending instead of to work to creating a working, fiscally sane Federal government. It's hard to build a working government in a two party system when one side is malicious/duplicitous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast