3 ms·
absolutely never? Like when Bill Gates estimated the success of microsoft his estimate failed and microsoft also failed? Like it's cool to say Tech bros never e
by ninetyninenine 2y ago
absolutely never? Like when Bill Gates estimated the success of microsoft his estimate failed and microsoft also failed? Like it's cool to say Tech bros never estimate anything right, but honestly the statement isn't at all universally true.
Sarcasm aside, AGI may not be 1 to 3 years away but I think it could be about a decade away. Within our lifetimes. The last decade till now was a huge jump. The next decade should be an even bigger jump.
I think more then hype, is the absolute negativity around AI. Like there's definitely unreasonable excitement among entrepreneurs who bet on AI. That's expected but that's a minority of the population.
Most people are really negative against AI. And I think the negativity is overblown. As overblown as the positivity from the AI entrepreneurs.
It's very generic. Anything that gets too popular too fast becomes stupid really quick as well. Have we forgotten just how revolutionary an LLM even is? I could not have predicted we would get to this point in my life time.
I'm telling you this negativity pervades the culture an influences our opinions more then the reality. If AI gets to the point where it can write a novel as good as a human, our negativity will delude most of us into thinking it's still trash. It's sort of like the opposite of modern art. Modern art is so obscure it's good even though it's really trash. AI is so crazy popular it's trash even though it's completely revolutionary.
- JohnFen 2y agoBill Gates was never a tech bro.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoBill Gates was one of the first tech bros. Either way Pick any successful start up founded by a tech bro... same story: The start up succeeded base off of a correct estimate.
- JohnFen 2y agoWe must have very, very different definitions of "tech bro". To me, it indicates a very specific subculture and Gates was never part of that.
- ltbarcly3 2y agoWhat is the point of just asserting something like this when it's SOOOO obviously an issue with definitions? Unless you just want to be difficult and disagreeable, the usual format would be "Hypothesis, supporting argument" not just saying the opposite. Here I'll get you started: Bill Gates wasn't a tech bro because ... (you fill in the ...) Edit: I think that if you write down your criteria for 'who is' and 'who isn't' a tech bro, we might not agree on those criteria but we can at least argue with evidence whether Bill Gates fits your definition or not.
- JohnFen 2y agoBill Gates wasn't a tech bro because "tech bro" refers to a very specific subculture that Gates was never a part of. It didn't even exist in his day. I'm not sure that's any better. In any case, you're right about it being definitional. I was just surprised that anybody would think of Gates as a tech bro. That's just an alien concept to me and I never expected to hear it asserted. But it doesn't really matter. Whether or not I agree with anyone about what a "tech bro" is (and clearly there is disagreement about that) is irrelevant.
- deadbabe 2y agoBill Gates was not a tech bro, he was a tech nerd. If you want to argue someone who is a tech bro and was also very successful Steve Jobs might be a better fit, as he never did tech work he just sold things.
- ninetyninenine 2y agotech bros don't actually do tech?