4 ms·

I think all these articles begging the question: what's author's credential to claim these things. Be careful about consuming information from chatters, not do

by liuliu 2y ago

I think all these articles begging the question: what's author's credential to claim these things. Be careful about consuming information from chatters, not doers. There is only knowledge from doing, not from pondering.

wavemode 2y ago
I'm generally more skeptical when reading takes and predictions from people working at AI companies, who have a financial interest in making sure the hype train continues. To make an analogy - most people who will tell you not to invest in cryptocurrency are not blockchain engineers. But does that make their opinion invalid?
- JackYoustra 2y ago
  The crypto people have no coherent story about why crypto is fundamentally earth-shaking more than a story about either gambling or regulatory avoidance, whereas the story for AI, if you believe it, is a second industrial revolution and labor automation where, to at least some small extent, it is undeniable.
- liuliu 2y ago
  Of course I trust people who working on L2 chains to tell me how to scale Bitcoin and people who working on cryptography to walk me through the ETH PoS algorithms. You cannot lead to truth by learning from people who don't know. People who know can be biased, sure, so the best way to learn is to learn the knowledge, not the "hot-takes" or "predictions".
friendzis 2y ago
> Be careful about consuming information from chatters, not doers The doers produce a new javascript framework every week, claiming it finally solves all the pains of previous frameworks, whereas the chatters pinpoint all the deficiencies and pain points. One group has an immensely better track record than the other.
- liuliu 2y ago
  I would listen to people who used the previous frameworks about the deficiencies and pain points, not people who just casually browse the documentation about their high-flying ideas why these have deficiencies and pain points. One group has an immensely more convincing power to me.
usaar333 2y ago
LW isn't a place that cares about credentialism. He has tons of links for the objective statements. You either accept the interpretation or you don't.
- NitpickLawyer 2y ago
  > He has tons of links for the objective statements. I stopped at this quote > LLMs still seem as terrible at this as they'd been in the GPT-3.5 age. This is so plainly, objectively and quantitatively wrong that I need not bother. I get hyperbole, but this isn't it. This shows a doubling-down on biases that the author has, and no amount of proof will change their mind. Not an article / source for me, then.

by liuliu 2y ago

wavemode 2y ago

I'm generally more skeptical when reading takes and predictions from people working at AI companies, who have a financial interest in making sure the hype train continues. To make an analogy - most people who will tell you not to invest in cryptocurrency are not blockchain engineers. But does that make their opinion invalid?

JackYoustra 2y ago
The crypto people have no coherent story about why crypto is fundamentally earth-shaking more than a story about either gambling or regulatory avoidance, whereas the story for AI, if you believe it, is a second industrial revolution and labor automation where, to at least some small extent, it is undeniable.
liuliu 2y ago
Of course I trust people who working on L2 chains to tell me how to scale Bitcoin and people who working on cryptography to walk me through the ETH PoS algorithms. You cannot lead to truth by learning from people who don't know. People who know can be biased, sure, so the best way to learn is to learn the knowledge, not the "hot-takes" or "predictions".

friendzis 2y ago

> Be careful about consuming information from chatters, not doers The doers produce a new javascript framework every week, claiming it finally solves all the pains of previous frameworks, whereas the chatters pinpoint all the deficiencies and pain points. One group has an immensely better track record than the other.

liuliu 2y ago
I would listen to people who used the previous frameworks about the deficiencies and pain points, not people who just casually browse the documentation about their high-flying ideas why these have deficiencies and pain points. One group has an immensely more convincing power to me.

usaar333 2y ago

LW isn't a place that cares about credentialism. He has tons of links for the objective statements. You either accept the interpretation or you don't.

NitpickLawyer 2y ago
> He has tons of links for the objective statements. I stopped at this quote > LLMs still seem as terrible at this as they'd been in the GPT-3.5 age. This is so plainly, objectively and quantitatively wrong that I need not bother. I get hyperbole, but this isn't it. This shows a doubling-down on biases that the author has, and no amount of proof will change their mind. Not an article / source for me, then.