This feels low effort by HN standards. Nothing wrong with the sentiment, but no domain name? Pretty superficial call to action? Gotta argue harder for what you think we lost, cite some news sources etc.
i was worried an appeal to non-technical folks (i avoided even invoking the name "LLM" to avoid confusion) might be a little basic for the HN crowd, but honestly im not on any social media and I really just have this place to post stuff. I tried reddit but good lord lol
it may not land for you, but hopefully itll land for others. im just fucking tired and trying to do what i can out here.
i am interested in your suggestion to argue harder for what I feel we have lost. any ideas around that youd like to share?
The central thesis is coherent but not particularly substantive. It echoes a lot of existing sentiments in the public about US frontier lab priorities and messaging. “AI creates slop that lowers the quality of media. AI companies have misaligned interests with humanity. AI will try to take your job. Be human, don’t use AI, enrich your life.” Things which are easy to agree on.
There’s a more nuanced discussion to be had about AI when it comes to potential and existing benefits, open source, the geopolitical dynamics, self-hosting, the financial dynamics, the sanctity of human thought, a future of even more personalised advertising and so on. We do need to elevate the discourse around AI and shift the public narratives around what US frontier labs are pushing, understanding their biases but also acknowledging substantive claims, potential benefits and risks.
thanks for the follow up. the much harder and more subtle bit i chose to only allude to in the essay is the idea of self hosting. using and controlling your own LLMs is how AI becomes a tool to empower humans.
locking LLM access behind a walled garden is how they serve as a means of profit and control, reserved for the "dont be evil" tech leaders.
i thought i hit on what you call "sanctity of human thought", but i suppose not. i believe that we individuals as a continuous thread of decisions and consequences and experience, are made "real" because of this. LLMs may have incredible breadth of knowledge (never mind the legitimacy of ther training corpus), but knowledge without experience is, well, academic. not real.
my next essays could touch any of these topics and many more which keep me up at night, and your suggestions are helpful.
kylehotchkiss · · focus · HN ↗
rDr4g0n · · focus · HN ↗
it may not land for you, but hopefully itll land for others. im just fucking tired and trying to do what i can out here.
i am interested in your suggestion to argue harder for what I feel we have lost. any ideas around that youd like to share?
aarondong · · focus · HN ↗
There’s a more nuanced discussion to be had about AI when it comes to potential and existing benefits, open source, the geopolitical dynamics, self-hosting, the financial dynamics, the sanctity of human thought, a future of even more personalised advertising and so on. We do need to elevate the discourse around AI and shift the public narratives around what US frontier labs are pushing, understanding their biases but also acknowledging substantive claims, potential benefits and risks.
rDr4g0n · · focus · HN ↗
locking LLM access behind a walled garden is how they serve as a means of profit and control, reserved for the "dont be evil" tech leaders.
i thought i hit on what you call "sanctity of human thought", but i suppose not. i believe that we individuals as a continuous thread of decisions and consequences and experience, are made "real" because of this. LLMs may have incredible breadth of knowledge (never mind the legitimacy of ther training corpus), but knowledge without experience is, well, academic. not real.
my next essays could touch any of these topics and many more which keep me up at night, and your suggestions are helpful.