maxrf

Arghh, do we have to go through the whole "correlation vs causation" detail again...

I do; because it matters in the 'real world' ;-}

or even as simple as mitochondria...

It seems grok is doing exactly what musk warned against AI being able to...

That all depends on what you mean by 'think'...

where does it say "own"? it says: "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content" type something - it's "used" to get what "you" want - how is that "own"?

It's also "you manage what you measure" - measure the wrong stuff ... I agree with empathy and 'EQ', better still if we can measure the outcomes we really want (vs the easy ones). That requires knowledge and insight.

We have a long history of 'dangerous' tech not destroying us - agriculture being one...

I grew up with the Doomsday Clock (atomic weapons) at 11:59... I think we'll muddle through.

It won't be 'irrational exuberance' again any time soon, nor the apocalypse (in my view).

Thanks, and agree it can feel 'mean and nasty' to disagree online - and that in-person politeness would help - yes, people will post things they wouldn't say.

PG has a take on why HN is more civil tl;dr 'it's behaviour not people' - in: 'dilution' at paulgraham dot com hackernews html

Thanks for the reply - appreciated.

This is a nice analogy for 'explaining' in general; start with the familiar and layer in new concepts gradually (checking understanding).

I'm old enough to be able to say confidently that there were plenty of de-socialised people before 'technology'. I'm with the OP that is a 'social', ie: human nature, issue - those 3 things - but also a skill - especially in a work environment where you don't know your colleagues as well (points 1 & 2) and you don't necessarily have 'psychological safety' (point 3).

As a counter example, I've recently been following the 'rise if cardboard', specifically the evolution of magic: the gathering, because some young friends offered to teach me the 'commander' variant - it's basically managed conflict in a social setting - I have to acknowledge, they're more skilled than me - I'm learning more than just the gameplay.

There's a nice article 'power struggles among nice people' that's relevant too - because of the automatic effect this has on our language (cue Steven Pinker). I'm with the group that thinks we have large brains to navigate complex social environments - ie: this stuff - because it's hard.

I doubt that would be enough to replace a good dungeon master - though you may get an oatmeal game...

1. Be interested in their 'developmental stages' (different ages are different)

2. Be interested in their interests.

3. Your enthusiasm matters more than almost anything else.

Let me make a start - and others can weigh in... I guess, that's my first point - a 'good' answer requires more nuance than the question provides. We're only a short evolutionary distance from our hunter-gatherer past, learning is still social, even 'academic' learning - why else ask these things on HN? A little while ago,I was turned down for a training course - offered to all, our CEO said 'you could learn that from a book' - true, but; I wanted an on-ramp to an unfamiliar area (felt I didn't know what I didn't know). I think the bard scenario provides an alluring step forward but misses some of the complexity of learning (especially for this audience who have internalized it). Short answer, I think it's a useful idea, we (bard) is not there - yet - will be a useful research assistant, has a way to go before being a tutor, I'm not sure our (human) side would benefit from replacing good lecturers - the best I've known could steer my curiosity in a way (social) that I don't see emerging from LLMs - yet...