ccortes

Location:MX

Remote:Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: Mostly Clojure and TS but I have the most fun working with functional languages

Résumé/CV: cuaucortes.com

Email: me at cuaucortes.com

Two times funder with one exit, looking for remote work at an early stage startup (preferably). Lately getting more and more into hardware stuff. I like to build things and solve problems.

> How can people in Hacker News still doubt AI's benefit

Because what many of us are seeing is meaningless “productivity” improvements.

If at the end of the day you don’t have more users paying for your product or the same users and paying more, then what’s the point of being more productive?

Bad argument. All countries have laws yet criminality rates varies a lot from country to country. It’s all about the culture.

There’s a huge difference between “doing more of X” and “doing only X”

For someone arguing that “coding is conveying logic” seems like you need a refresher on propositional logic

Maybe it’s not a given, but it is part of the sales pitch for CEOs. A few others have announced layoffs due to AI being better and more efficient than humans.

How much truth there is to it we don’t know for sure. But it’s not something to be ignored.

> in the long run those businesses fall to leaner competitors

This is not true at all. You can find plenty of examples going either way but it’s far from truth from being a universal reality

> It was comparing to a hypothetical world where everything is perfectly organized, everyone is perfectly behaved, everything is perfectly ordered, and therefore we don't have to have certain jobs that only exist to counter other imperfect things in society.

> Jobs that don't provide value for a company are cut, eventually.

Uhm, seems like Greaber is not the only one drawing conclusions from a hypothetical perfect world

People here seem to be conflating thinking hard and thinking a lot.

Most examples mentioned of “thinking hard” in the comments sound like they think about a lot of stuff superficially instead one particular problem deeply, which is what OP is referring to.

Oh wow, is that what you got from this?

It seems more like a non experienced guy asked the LLM to implement something and the LLM just output what and experienced guy did before, and it even gave him the credit

> then you're doing the opposite of what the author proposes

No, it’s exactly what the author is writing about. Just check his example, it’s pretty clear what he means by “thinking in math”

> Scientific conensus in math is Occam's Razor, or the principle of parsimony. In algebra, topology, logic and many other domains, this means that rather than having many computational steps (or a "simple mental model") to arrive to an answer, you introduce a concept that captures a class of problems and use that.

I don’t even know what you mean by this.

I really want to get into ocaml but the syntax is sooo ugly I feel like you need a great IDE set up to be able to be productive with it.

> In this article, being "functional" is just serving as a proxy for code quality.

It is not, it is being very specific about what it means and what it is referring to

> It doesn’t really matter why it’s not working.

It does, because it changes the strategy.

If you think the ads are working and have 10k potential customers then you start thinking about how to increase your conversion rate thinking you could get a chunk of those 10k, you might think distribution is solved.

But if it turns out only 2.5k are real humans then your conversion rate might not even be an issue and it’s just the marketing strategy that needs tweaking.

The whole point is that they are giving you fraudulent traffic which you use as real data to figure out the next steps. If you don’t know it’s fraudulent or how much of the clicks are fraudulent then you are taking decisions under the wrong assumptions.

> You can’t stop fraudulent clicks just like you can’t stop your SuperBowl ad from playing while your viewers are in the bathroom

That’s not even a good analogy, we are taking clicks, not impressions.