5 ms·

John Carmack seems like a guy that would've made fundamental contributions to science, had he been born a century before. Computer science now occupies the pla

by yaseer 7y ago

John Carmack seems like a guy that would've made fundamental contributions to science, had he been born a century before. Computer science now occupies the place physics once did, in its impact on moving the world forward. Best of luck to him, I look forward to seeing what he produces!

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
You guys really get high on your own supply don't you? It's a toss-up these days whether something from computer science or a programmer will either enhance or erode the human experience and quality of life.
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  I think you're on the wrong site if you're wanting to criticize software development as a career and suggest it does more harm than good
  - cambalache 7y ago
    Yes, join the echo chamber or get out.
    - whamlastxmas 7y ago
      It's more: offer substantiative evidence of your counter-culture claims that vilify most of your reading audience, or take your baseless negativity elsewhere
    - jodrellblank 7y ago
      So which are you going to do?
  - catalogia 7y ago
    I can't think of a better site for him to make such arguments. What's the point of such criticism if the subjects of the criticism never read it?
    - whamlastxmas 7y ago
      One-off snide attacks in a comment section without any evidence or argument to back it up offers nothing of value. If you have a strong stance about the evils of software development then write something of substance and post it. I am sure it will get plenty of discussion if there's any merit to it.
      - PavlovsCat 7y ago
        > One-off snide attacks in a comment section without any evidence or argument to back it up offers nothing of value. Can you back that up? Here's the comment: > You guys really get high on your own supply don't you? It's a toss-up these days whether something from computer science or a programmer will either enhance or erode the human experience and quality of life. "getting high on your own supply" isn't such a giant insult that you can simply "make the dozen full" and claim whatever you want about the comment. > I am sure it will get plenty of discussion if there's any merit to it. Then you're sure of something that is demonstrably false, and one-off low effort sophistry like this offers nothing of value. There is no hard connection between the merit of something and HN's ability to discuss it. Take this story sticking to the top for probably over 24 hours, basically an announement to spend more time with his son, and that's it, while this got sunk off the front page yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21527622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21527622
  - austhrow743 7y ago
    The forum of a VC firm doesn't seem antithetical to that at all. No one here is claiming that software development doesn't make fat stacks and viable businesses. It just happens to do it by perverting humanity. Moving us further away from our ideal environment.
- whymauri 7y ago
  I'm generally inclined to agree with your first statement, but not very sure what's the point of your second statement. There was a 50/50 chance 100 years ago that discoveries in chemistry or physics were immediately weaponized. I'd say GP's analogy still holds, yeah?
  - JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
    Even a decade ago, I'd be all onboard seeing computer science as "advancing humanity." Lately not so much so. Maybe the comparison to phsyics is appropriate. We have reached the "nuclear weapons" age of computer science where we need programmers to make ethical stands, lest we severely damage the human condition.
- cambalache 7y ago
  Hehe, I love CS, but give me significant advances in physics, chemistry or medicine over some new "breakthrough" in machine learning.
  - djohnston 7y ago
    A general AI would give you all 3
    - landryraccoon 7y ago
      That argument is like saying if we had better theorists you wouldn't need to build particle accelerators. Nature has brute facts that can only be discovered through observation. I would be surprised to see evidence that an intelligence, no matter how smart, could reason to the fundamental properties of neutrinos without massive physical real world experiments and piles of observational data.
      - goatlover 7y ago
        If it could, that would mean rationalism as a philosophy would come back into play, whereas empiricism has been dominant during the scientific revolution.
      - sullyj3 7y ago
        obviously ultimately you need observation, but I think this article (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien-message https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien...) makes an intuitive case that having better researchers gets you greater insight per unit observation.
- tnecniv 7y ago
  I don't have the same grandiose notions of CS that OP has, but you could say that about any research field. Physics gave us airplanes and bombs to drop from them. Biology and chemistry gave us pharmaceuticals and pollutants. You can do this for any field of study really.
glofish 7y ago
why would being born in the current century preclude one from making fundamental contributions? You are making a common mistake of assuming that just because someone is good at something like programing computers the same skill would translate identically to a completely different domain. If anything he is lucky to have been born in an era where his skill of programming computers could be put to use - otherwise his talents may have gone to waste, he may have ended up toiling fields his talent untapped and undiscovered, like that of millions before him.
- randomidiot666 7y ago
  High intelligence in one technical domain translates well enough to competence in other technical domains. Carmack isn't just a programmer, he is a highly creative technical problem solver. However, AGI does seem orders of magnitude more complex than developing 3D game engines.
- carlosdp 7y ago
  John in particular has shown a propensity to translate his skills into disjoint domains pretty well. I don't think he's good at what he does because he's good at computers. I think it's more that he's really really good at understanding problems and designing reasonable paths to solutions. And then he has the ability to power through learning what he needs to in order to build toward those solutions lightning fast.
- teawrecks 7y ago
  He's "good at programming" like Galileo was "good with telescopes." Computers, telescopes, hammers, they're all just tools, and Carmack has proven himself as far more than just a handyman. He's the kind of person where, if you show him what you're working on and he doesn't understand it, you probably need to go back to the drawing board.
  - glofish 7y ago
    Your argument is a bit like: here is this amazing long-distance runner who trains for years at a time, had he put all that effort into painting he would be a new Picasso. For what is worth computers are unique tools unlike any other tool that mankind has invented before - thus it is much harder to tell what other jobs would a good programmer excel at.
ekianjo 7y ago
> John Carmack seems like a guy that would've made fundamental contributions to science, had he been born a century before. I see Carmack as a very(as in uniquely) talented Engineer. Usually, engineers are not the type who do very well in pure research topics. And AGI is certainly a pure research topic, since we don't have a clear leading us there. So while it's great to see he is interested in it, now sure if we should have any kind of expectation there.

by yaseer 7y ago

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago

You guys really get high on your own supply don't you? It's a toss-up these days whether something from computer science or a programmer will either enhance or erode the human experience and quality of life.

whamlastxmas 7y ago
I think you're on the wrong site if you're wanting to criticize software development as a career and suggest it does more harm than good
- cambalache 7y ago
  Yes, join the echo chamber or get out.
  - whamlastxmas 7y ago
    It's more: offer substantiative evidence of your counter-culture claims that vilify most of your reading audience, or take your baseless negativity elsewhere
  - jodrellblank 7y ago
    So which are you going to do?
- catalogia 7y ago
  I can't think of a better site for him to make such arguments. What's the point of such criticism if the subjects of the criticism never read it?
  - whamlastxmas 7y ago
    One-off snide attacks in a comment section without any evidence or argument to back it up offers nothing of value. If you have a strong stance about the evils of software development then write something of substance and post it. I am sure it will get plenty of discussion if there's any merit to it.
    - PavlovsCat 7y ago
      > One-off snide attacks in a comment section without any evidence or argument to back it up offers nothing of value. Can you back that up? Here's the comment: > You guys really get high on your own supply don't you? It's a toss-up these days whether something from computer science or a programmer will either enhance or erode the human experience and quality of life. "getting high on your own supply" isn't such a giant insult that you can simply "make the dozen full" and claim whatever you want about the comment. > I am sure it will get plenty of discussion if there's any merit to it. Then you're sure of something that is demonstrably false, and one-off low effort sophistry like this offers nothing of value. There is no hard connection between the merit of something and HN's ability to discuss it. Take this story sticking to the top for probably over 24 hours, basically an announement to spend more time with his son, and that's it, while this got sunk off the front page yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21527622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21527622
- austhrow743 7y ago
  The forum of a VC firm doesn't seem antithetical to that at all. No one here is claiming that software development doesn't make fat stacks and viable businesses. It just happens to do it by perverting humanity. Moving us further away from our ideal environment.
whymauri 7y ago
I'm generally inclined to agree with your first statement, but not very sure what's the point of your second statement. There was a 50/50 chance 100 years ago that discoveries in chemistry or physics were immediately weaponized. I'd say GP's analogy still holds, yeah?
- JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
  Even a decade ago, I'd be all onboard seeing computer science as "advancing humanity." Lately not so much so. Maybe the comparison to phsyics is appropriate. We have reached the "nuclear weapons" age of computer science where we need programmers to make ethical stands, lest we severely damage the human condition.
cambalache 7y ago
Hehe, I love CS, but give me significant advances in physics, chemistry or medicine over some new "breakthrough" in machine learning.
- djohnston 7y ago
  A general AI would give you all 3
  - landryraccoon 7y ago
    That argument is like saying if we had better theorists you wouldn't need to build particle accelerators. Nature has brute facts that can only be discovered through observation. I would be surprised to see evidence that an intelligence, no matter how smart, could reason to the fundamental properties of neutrinos without massive physical real world experiments and piles of observational data.
    - goatlover 7y ago
      If it could, that would mean rationalism as a philosophy would come back into play, whereas empiricism has been dominant during the scientific revolution.
    - sullyj3 7y ago
      obviously ultimately you need observation, but I think this article (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien-message https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien...) makes an intuitive case that having better researchers gets you greater insight per unit observation.
tnecniv 7y ago
I don't have the same grandiose notions of CS that OP has, but you could say that about any research field. Physics gave us airplanes and bombs to drop from them. Biology and chemistry gave us pharmaceuticals and pollutants. You can do this for any field of study really.

glofish 7y ago

why would being born in the current century preclude one from making fundamental contributions? You are making a common mistake of assuming that just because someone is good at something like programing computers the same skill would translate identically to a completely different domain. If anything he is lucky to have been born in an era where his skill of programming computers could be put to use - otherwise his talents may have gone to waste, he may have ended up toiling fields his talent untapped and undiscovered, like that of millions before him.

randomidiot666 7y ago
High intelligence in one technical domain translates well enough to competence in other technical domains. Carmack isn't just a programmer, he is a highly creative technical problem solver. However, AGI does seem orders of magnitude more complex than developing 3D game engines.
carlosdp 7y ago
John in particular has shown a propensity to translate his skills into disjoint domains pretty well. I don't think he's good at what he does because he's good at computers. I think it's more that he's really really good at understanding problems and designing reasonable paths to solutions. And then he has the ability to power through learning what he needs to in order to build toward those solutions lightning fast.
teawrecks 7y ago
He's "good at programming" like Galileo was "good with telescopes." Computers, telescopes, hammers, they're all just tools, and Carmack has proven himself as far more than just a handyman. He's the kind of person where, if you show him what you're working on and he doesn't understand it, you probably need to go back to the drawing board.
- glofish 7y ago
  Your argument is a bit like: here is this amazing long-distance runner who trains for years at a time, had he put all that effort into painting he would be a new Picasso. For what is worth computers are unique tools unlike any other tool that mankind has invented before - thus it is much harder to tell what other jobs would a good programmer excel at.

ekianjo 7y ago

> John Carmack seems like a guy that would've made fundamental contributions to science, had he been born a century before. I see Carmack as a very(as in uniquely) talented Engineer. Usually, engineers are not the type who do very well in pure research topics. And AGI is certainly a pure research topic, since we don't have a clear leading us there. So while it's great to see he is interested in it, now sure if we should have any kind of expectation there.