buriram

"The Chinese just want to make money and beat America. They don't have evil goals so they're not evil people."

They straight up censored Kylian Mbappe a few days ago for cracking a joke about Mao Zedong. And very much all the models developed by China would have to conform with Chinese government's viewpoint, including censorship and such. Do you truly believe that they are not evil, or they will not ever be evil?

Care to elaborate why "they are led by evil people", and what AI companies are "not led by evil people"?

No thank you. I worked in multiple startups and they inherited the worst cancers of big tech: moving slowly, decisions by committees, leveling (in one startup, the founder decided to have six engineering levels in a company with less than 10 engineers). Compound with low pay and erratic behavior of founders, I had seen more than enough.

They did. You just haven’t heard of them yet, most of them are very much in stealth mode.

Sure, then tell me what's the alternative?

* Product design / product engineering / full stack engineering are totally killed by AI. I can clone Tailwind and integrate in my repo in 30 minutes with Claude Code, good riddance.

* System design is very much about "who can bullshit more and better", a literal description of practicing something that you would never do during your day to day work.

* Startups are full of nonsenses from VC like "you are ex-Googler, here's $10M for you to build internal dashboard". Then you get the likes of Retool with a bunch of salesreps who try to justify their existence by selling you stuffs you never want and never use in your life outside work. If you work there as "founding engineer", I wish you good luck.

* AI/ML (NeuRIPS) are 60k papers, most of them AI generated and AI reviewed. Yeah, good luck sorting through those noises.

Then tell me, my friend, what's the alternative? Maybe it's easier to spin up a trading bot and trade how many times Trump mention X, Y, Z.

To me, product management and product engineering are the corporate bootlicker. You spend all day long adjusting the pixels, taking tickets from customers who ask for things like "why is button red not green", "why this list is not sorted alphabetically", or "I want this field 30px higher, not lower".

And by the way, you fought through all of that for a $15k-20k ARR contract. Never again, thank you.

Oh, and the PMs are just drones sitting in a room doing nothing but talks and herding the engineers like chicken, and try to claim credits for all the work engineers do. Never met a competent PM in my life.

Because they do Leetcode interview and the day to day work is to solve Leetcode problems.

Now tell me where else can I find such a company having that?

I only care about competitive programming and solve algorithm problem. Nothing else matter: I don't care about product, frontend, security, data pipeline, bla bla nonsense.

And by the way, $400k+ salary in cash and RSU please. No stock options, thank you.

I haven’t watched the video, but likely it hasn’t answered a question: why math? Why not physics, neuroscience, philosophy or history? People claim math is both philosophical and art, but is that a sufficiently good reason to pursue math as opposed to other careers?

A lot of arguments seem to try to cling to the “old” way of doing math: staring at the blackboard for hours, wrestling with papers and papers of equations, and do forth. Well, chess players went through a similar transition period: carrying books of openings and such, to chess database, to chess engine and now AI. And at no point I hear chess players complaining that we have to study chess the old way.

A corner stone of Economics is Game Theory and Prisoner's Dilemma. You can choose not to do things for profit, but other people will.

In my first class of Software Engineering, I was taught that software is designed for changes. Even if software the fully deterministic, it interfaces with a world that is constantly changing: requirements change, customers change, political systems change.

I don't understand. Why is this the onus of scientists and PhDs to review whatever results OpenAI had dumped out? If OpenAI had produced incomprehensible papers, surely any journals would just reject it, or demand the author to do a complete rewrite? Unless we are talking about a race to solve problems, which PhDs are afraid that they had been scooped up on?