arexxbifs

A lot can (and should) be said about this keynote, but I have a hangup on portraiture as an example of "creative destruction" (how I loathe that expression!). Classical portraiture is still alive and well and artists are still able to make a living from it - possibly even more of them now than during the 1800s.

The advent of the camera did push visual art in new directions, but not quite as presented here. Oil painting and portraiture wasn't as static as it's made out to be, and there's a difference between a commissioned portrait and artists painting people because they enjoy painting people. Giuseppe Arcimboldo, El Greco and Hieronymus Bosch are some of the most well-known experimenters in western art and they were active in the 1500s. Some of the most famous art movements (impressionism, expressionism, arts & crafts) appeared well before photography was democratized.

The biggest difference, though - as much as I love art - is that portraits are a distraction. Then as now, it's mostly a vanity project for the affluent and of little consequence to the lives of the vast majority. Software, on the other hand, is not only a multi-billion dollar industry employing millions of people, it's also a direct matter of life and death, since it's an essential component in things like nuclear power plants, airplanes and medical equipment.

Even the stuff they've traditionally been good at?

Funny thing is, I haven't bought much furniture for ages since my old IKEA stuff has lasted for several decades and is still going strong. Their major kitchen appliances are crap, though.

Not really, since it was something that particular character would clearly have known about and wouldn't have gained anything from lying about.

I played various murder mystery games this summer and one of them had this feature: you could call a suspect and ask arbitrary questions for a limited amount of time (three minutes or something). The problem was of course that the model hallucinated an answer to one of the questions, suggesting that other suspects were related by blood even though they clearly weren't.

The interesting thing here, I think, is what actually drives the growth of industrialization: cheap energy, an exploitable labor force and increased automation.

Every industrial economy seems to reach a plateau of diminishing returns, and it actually seems to be reached faster the faster industrialization is implemented. We see it in Europe, in the US, in Japan, in South Korea and it seems China is well on their way there, too: Cheap energy is diminishing (shale oil fracking, increased cost of building nuclear, etc) and exploitable labor has mostly been pushed as far as it can (dwindling fertility rates across the globe). Thus, we place our hope in automation, which has also been taken incredibly far already.

LLMs really must be some magic special sauce if they're to automate us into a new era of explosive growth. So far I don't think they're living up to that promise.

It's not that I dislike the humor, I just don't think it's as hilarious as it's often made out to be. Insult sword fighting, for example, is at best a sensible chuckle and gets pretty long in the tooth after the first two attempts or so.

I played it when it was released and mostly enjoyed it, though I can't remember what difficulty setting I picked. I bought it mostly because I like Mark Ferrari's art, but ended up completing it. Some characters and jokes were intensely annoying, especially Ransome. I did like Delores, though.

Afterwards, I revisited some LucasArts games I'd played before (Monkey Island 1 and 2), and tried my hand with some I hadn't (Fate of Atlantis, Sam'n'Max, Full Throttle and also Flight of the Amazon Queen, which isn't from LucasArts). I think what you describe is actually fairly representative of the overall LucasArts experience. Character building is limited, even the funny jokes get tiresome after you've clicked through them a fifth time, some puzzles are illogical even for games with a sillier tone (monkey wrench, anyone?), and there's often a lot of walking about, repeating conversations, and clicking randomly just to see what happens. Some of them (Thimbleweed Park, MI2) also have exceptionally poor endings.

Out of the games I played, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis was the best, though I got stuck (by forgetting some object in a room outside a complex labyrinth) close to the end and didn't bother completing it. The main character is pre-established, the plot feels like an Indy movie, and I can't recall any genuinely preposterous puzzle solutions (though it was a few years ago now).

I love the Monkey Island games, they're a part of my childhood. But I mostly love them for the music and graphics, not necessarily for the puzzles or the many gags that other people always seem to find a lot funnier than I do.

> I'm curious, where would you prefer to go for a discussion like this one with people you've never heard from before?

That's my point: HN/Reddit/etc serve a different purpose than phpBB-style forums. The format isn't improved or superior, it's just different. I suppose it was originally popularized by Slashdot, so it isn't even "new".

> It seems like you find it valuable enough to participate.

I never said I didn't?

Reddit and HN aren't forums, they're factories for quick takes and reactions (and yes this is one of them). It's a transitory experience.

The good old "crappy" forum format isn't gamified with upvotes and often have long-running, slow-burn threads that go on for months or years. Even once popular, high-traffic forums such as SomethingAwful had a different pacing and community feel to them. It's like a pub with its locals and regulars, but where new faces sometimes pop in.

With that said, there are still plenty of "crappy" forums around, typically at least one for every special interest or hobby imaginable.

It really wasn't. It was a moronic move fueled by hype, implemented by the same type of incompetent business leaders who previously, to various extents, drank the blockchain and metaverse kool-aid.

There was demonstrably zero cost or consequence analysis, which is also why it was dialed back as soon as the (still) subsidized tokens became just slightly less subsidized, and the wise leaders realized they spent huge sums of money with no way of gauging ROI.

LLMs may have their use cases, but let's not make up free excuses for blithering idiots who, by any rights, should all be fired for cooking up money-burning policies that are textbook implementations of Goodhart's law.

Anyway, just needed to get that off my chest.

For me it's mostly about knowing what you're getting when craving the flavour of a particular dish. Carbonara is perhaps an example of a recipe that's turned too rigid, but I've also ordered it and been served diced boiled ham in bechamel - an affront to anyone with their sights set on pan-fried pork and a rich, fatty mouthfeel.

Everyone has their own personal limit and variations are allowed within certain unwritten boundaries. Swedish meatballs, for example, can be varied in many ways - but if you put garlic in them, I think you should call them something else.

What if there are several reasons all at once?

* Economy is tighter overall.

* Covid overhiring followed by firing means fresh graduates face competition from a large cohort of people with a few years of work experience.

* Even if it's not necessarily true, if the C-suite _believes_ that AI can replace juniors, that's enough to funnel money away from hiring and into AI investments. When money for hiring is tight, seniors are prioritized.

* Like it or not, workforce immigration (such as H-1B) causes displacement.

* The number of CS graduates in the US has doubled over the last decade.

In Sweden, fresh graduates across a number of fields are having a hard time finding jobs. Many of thosee seem to have either a STEM education affected by a dip in "green" capex/investments, or in "overhead" sectors likely to be tightened in bad times, such as HR specialists.

> Imagine asking “What will be changed by the internet?” in 1997

Pretty much all of the stuff that was suggested back then or earlier: Shopping, advertising, video conferencing, collaboration, software distribution, media consumption, banking, finance and of course communication overall.

Most of these ideas weren't exactly new in 1997, but go back to services like CompuServe and even Douglas Engelbart's Mother of All Demos. The bottlenecks were bandwidth and personal computer performance (both of which were then predictably following Moore's law), not human imagination.

A few examples that a lot of people correctly extrapolated from: NLS (1968), PictureTel (1987) and later LiveShare, IndyCam (1993), CUSeeMee (1995), RealAudio (1995), RealVideo (1997).

Perhaps the core business problem with LLM:s isn't finding a product-market fit, but that our imaginations have been running wild with expectations on "AI" since at least the 1950s, and now we have something that quacks - but doesn't quite walk - like a duck.