17 ms·
What to Do
- drweevil 2y agoNot the first time I find myself wishing there was some explanation about the flagging.
- dang 2y agoThe explanation is basically always the same: users flagged it. Why? Who can say? One would have to ask them, and that wouldn't work anyhow.
- luckylion 2y agoI did not flag this, but I've flagged stuff before that I don't want to see more of on HN because it feels like it would ruin what I enjoy. If I need "Person did X - What happened next will surprise you", I'd go to reddit, so I'll flag that type of low-quality content. I don't know why people flagged this, but I often had the impression that PG's content ends up on the front page because he's PG, not because it's particularly interesting or noteworthy. Maybe the people flagging it feel similar.
- archagon 2y agoUntil I hear a vote of no confidence from Paul for YC’s current leadership, I have no interest in anything he has to say. After all, Elon Musk — the guy cheerfully and illegally dismantling the federal government, who called my friends “parasites” for taking benefits and apparently wants to see witnesses against the president executed, who enthusiastically supports far-right populist parties like the AfD and makes suspiciously Nazi-looking salutes on stage — is still invited to YC’s AI Startup School. Garry Tan, it seems, has no problem with any of this. I’m sure he relishes a new world order where he sits on the board of Yarvin’s fever dream government. Want to do something good, Paul? Do everything in your power to stem the bleed of encroaching fascism and neo-reactionaryism. Put your reputation and wallet on the line. Be a leader. Otherwise, you’re just posting platitudes while one of the world’s great democracies dies an agonizing death by the hands of your peers.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- curtisszmania 2y ago[dead]
- gnuser 2y agoWorking on it. :) Looking forward to showing HN one day.
- cloogshicer 2y ago> you should at least make sure that the new things you make don't net harm people or the world. How? Is the internet a net positive or net negative thing? How about Social Media? Is it maybe even more complex such that we can't tally up positive/negative "points" and a term like "net positive" doesn't even make sense for these things?
- QuadmasterXLII 2y agoOk, but don’t make an algorithm for a sports gambling app that notices when people are struggling to quit and targets them with promotions.
- FloorEgg 2y agoIt's a hard question to answer but not impossible. Here's a bit of an oversimplification: - is what you made useful to anyone? If it's not, no one will use it so it doesn't matter. - does what you made help people be more productive or less productive? - does it help improve people's health or degrade it? - does it give people what they want in the short term at the cost of harming them in the long term? - does it help some people while actively harming others? - does it help people but harm the environment or other creatures? Etc. Most failure comes from not getting past the first question. These are easy questions to ask but very hard to answer. Most startup founders make up answers and then go nowhere and waste a bunch of time/money. Even smart people doing their best fall into this trap. Our system isn't good at developing people to be good at empathizing at scale. When people try to empathize at scale they over-generalize to the point of near meaninglessness.
- asadotzler 2y agoYou will make nothing so grand as a platform used by billions so that's all irrelevant. If you make, say, an ovulation app designed to feed user data to companies so they can fire pregnant workers before the company is required to give leave or other benefits, that's bad. Get it? You are not so incapable of distinguishing these things as you feign here. Pretending that everything is a neutral tool that might be misused for bad is child-like. Stop doing that.
- yamrzou 2y ago
- handfuloflight 2y ago"Make good new things" overlooks a critical tension: that goodness itself remains contested territory. The most transformative innovations reveal that creation's power cuts both ways. The printing press spread knowledge and literacy but also enabled propaganda wars and religious conflicts. Nuclear fission powers cities with clean energy but also destroyed Hiroshima & Nagasaki and created existential risk. The internet connects billions across continents while weakening community bonds and fragmenting our shared reality. Each breakthrough that advances humanity also challenges our moral certainties. This suggests we need a fourth principle: "Cultivate discernment about goodness." Not merely as an afterthought, but as an essential companion to creation. Such discernment acknowledges that innovation contains both medicine and poison in the same vessel—and that our capacity to create has outpaced our ability to foresee consequences. And perhaps equally important is recognizing that meaningful contribution isn't always about creating anew, but often about cultivating what already exists: preserving, interpreting, and transmitting knowledge and practices in ways that transform both the cultivator and what is cultivated. Yet Graham's framing—"What should one do?"—contains a deeper limitation. It positions ethics as an individual pursuit in an age where our greatest challenges are fundamentally collective. "What should one do?" seems personal, but in our connected world, doesn't the answer depend increasingly on what seven billion others are doing? When more people than ever can create or cultivate, our challenge becomes coordinating this massive, parallel work toward flourishing rather than conflict and destruction. These principles aren't merely personal guideposts but the architecture for civilization's operating system. They point toward our central challenge: how to organize creativity and cultivation at planetary scale; how to balance the brilliant chaos of individual and organizational impetus with the steady hand of collective welfare. This balance requires new forms of governance that can channel our pursuits toward shared flourishing—neither controlling too tightly nor letting things run wild. It calls for institutions that learn and adapt as quickly as the world changes. And it asks us to embrace both freedom of pursuit and responsibility to others, seeing them as two sides of the same coin in a world where what you bring forth may shape my future. The question isn't just what should I do, but what should we become?
- cloogshicer 2y agoBeautifully put. Thank you.
- an0malous 2y ago[flagged]
- voidhorse 2y agopg's writing is so lazy. At best he engages with thinkers in a superficial way, further, he never expands his horizons beyond the typical cadre of classics, he says nothing of actual intellectual substance and worth, and if anything he legitimizes an uncritical stance toward the world (a sort of pseudo-intellectual neopositivism). I still think a poverty of exposure and experience in the history of philosophy and literature on the part of his audience is the only reason he gets any sort of readership.
- bigyabai 2y agoYeah. I've never been particularly fond of the "traditional" computing essays by Stallman et. al, but compared to PG's essays they read like Tolkien.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bayarearefugee 2y agoI agree with you in the general case but I'd also add that this specific post is even worse than the usual stuff he writes. It's a 1500 word essay that says absolutely nothing at all.
- graycat 2y agoMaybe PG is "superficial". Hmm ... It may be that commonly drilling down as deep as can is not productive and, instead, there is some wisdom that commonly productive solutions are surprisingly simplistic, i.e., "superficial"?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Madmallard 2y agoI personally don't think technology for the most part is good for society. It makes nature boring and predictable and life less interesting as a whole if this is true, but I don't think we even understand the degree to which technology is just ruining life for the future. We don't have adaptations to deal with anything and adaptations take tens of thousands of years if not way more to occur. The romantic thought is that technology can help us solve the problems that come up as a result of itself, but I'm less optimistic there just because of how things have been going. It seems like human nature and us not being good at understanding large complex systems as a species results in the malignant actors and developments taking root and metastasizing over time. - global warming - antibiotic resistance - environmental contamination - food quality diminishing - explosive increase in chronic disease, especially in young people - extinction of most other species - fertility problems - declining birth rates - poly-pharmacy becoming normal - now things related to energy consumption with AI and cryptocurrency - huge decline in social behaviors across the population Just seems like for every new advancement we're making new chronic issues that are barely incentivized at all for being managed and alleviated
- pvg 2y agoAt the beginning of the 1800s, half of people's children died. We literally beat fucking Thanos for children. That's not a 'romantic thought'.
- georgemcbay 2y agoThe wheel is technology, metallurgy is technology, irrigation is technology. Technology is vital to a functioning society. There's certainly more debate to be had whether various bits of modern technology are net positive or net negative, but even still I personally believe modern technology is mostly neutral to very good for humanity in a vacuum and it is other forces like modern capitalism that bend it toward being harmful. eg. Social media is very clearly having a net negative impact on modern society, but I don't believe that would still be true if it wasn't driven by algorithms created to maximize ad revenue above all other concerns. And obviously there is some inherent coupling of modern technology and capitalism that isn't avoidable, but I don't think capitalism on its own is wholly bad, its the slavish cult-like worship of it as the only way to do things that causes it to be so destructive.
- a2code 2y ago> The most impressive thing humans can do is to think. > And the best kind of thinking, or more precisely the best proof that one has thought well, is to make good new things. > ... but making good new things is a should in the sense that this is how to live to one's full potential. I urge you not to take these opinions as facts. Originality is admirable, but it is not "your potential", "proof of great thoughts", or "the most impressive thing you can do". The answer to the question: What to do? is not "Make new things", but rather begins with a simple question: In what context? The idea of dividing people into two categories: 1) those who "take care of people and the world", and those who 2) "make good new things", is harmful.
- graycat 2y agoDo? Make money enough to support self and family and then have a good family. Understand people. With all the talk in the news about the current Disney Snow White, got out the DVD for the old Disney Cinderella: Yup, have learned enough about people to see that the many plot events are not just incidental for the drama but examples of deep fundamentals about people. In particular understand what's important for good family formation. Understand human societies, e.g., cultures, religions, economies, politics, war and peace. Understand academics: E.g., a lot of academics that has done research that results in good tools to enable "Make good new things" has deep contempt for doing that. Understand, say, math, physical science, biology, medical science, nature, technology, fine arts.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sitkack 2y agoIs Paul giving himself a pass for the companies he funds?
- booleandilemma 2y agoI read it more like he's considering what to throw his money at, and it sounds like he wants to throw his money at companies that make good new things.
- sitkack 2y agoBut then he doesn't really define good, makes an odd comparison to a now acclaimed pulp fiction author and then says we can only really know what is good after the fact. Leaning on "new" so hard as part of the "good" just reduces to, "Make new-new things that aren't by every objective measure bad and see if it works out in hindsight". It would be helpful if we understood what good and bad mean to him.
- mbesto 2y agoHis essay from 2008[0] is just as nebulous. When you have such a hand-wavy definition of such an important term, it ultimately means you can wield your narrative to fit any conclusion you want. [0] - https://www.paulgraham.com/good.html https://www.paulgraham.com/good.html
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- thrance 2y agoWith his multiple endorsements of MAGA I fear his definition of "good" is severley warped. Is ensuring the poor don't die of preventable diseases good? Not to this guy.
- pesus 2y agoYeah, this feels like an attempt to (partially preemptively?) rehabilitate his image/legacy more than anything. If he makes a blog saying how important it is to "make good new things", then surely everything he makes is a good new thing! No need to look further to see what he actually supports.
- hsshhshshjk 2y agoIs making music something "good and new"? Art?
- sctb 2y agoExplicitly yes: > I mean new things in a very general sense. Newton's physics was a good new thing. Indeed, the first version of this principle was to have good new ideas. But that didn't seem general enough: it didn't include making art or music, for example, except insofar as they embody new ideas.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- thinkingemote 2y agoArt should be, yes. Unfortunately a lot of visual art being produced from art schools and shown in museums / galleries are forms of criticism. The article mentions crticism as not being a good new thing. The message they seek to convey is more of a priority than the creation of a Good Thing. (In reality modern art is a mixture of varying degrees of criticism and creation) This is partly because modern conceptual art is about concepts so it's very easy for it to be overtaken by a political or critical message as the concept.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- brody_hamer 2y agoWhat more can a person do than eat, drink, and take joy in their work?
- thrance 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y ago"Don't be snarky." "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- thrance 2y agoForgive me, but I feel like these guidelines are enforced very selectively. Paul Graham's last post against "wokeness" staying on the front page for two days left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. Why should his political crusades not only be allowed on here but also promoted? Similarly, why are some DOGE posts allowed to pass through the flag-filter but not others? I'll take your comment as a hint to take a break from HN. But please, do consider further detailing what kind of political content is acceptable or not.
- dang 2y agoYour reply would make more sense to me if I had mentioned the HN guideline against using the site for political battle, but I didn't. The guidelines I listed your comment as breaking don't have anything to do with that. But here's a response anyhow—if you look at the past explanations here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... you'll find exhaustive explanations of how we approach politics on HN. If you read some of that and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at it. I should add, though, that it's too much to expect moderation to be consistent. The principles by which we moderate HN are consistent, but it's not possible to apply them consistently to all the content. There's far too much content for us to read it all, and randomness is a major factor in sevreral different ways.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- whatrocks 2y agoSomewhat similar to my answer (borrowed from children's publisher Klutz Press): "Create wonderful things, be good, have fun" https://charlieharrington.com/create-wonderful-things-be-good-have-fun/ https://charlieharrington.com/create-wonderful-things-be-goo...
- Ambix 2y agoWow, so cool retro designed blog there! For those who kinda liked window system of first Mac generations :)
- oleggromov 2y agoThis is a great inspiring story and wonderful books. Thank you! Trying to find them now.
- ofrzeta 2y agoThere's a book about knots by Klutz that was featured here. Comes with string(s) attached.
- MrMcCall 2y agoI'm not a frayed knot.
- skeeter2020 2y agoI don't remember too many knots, but anything that stuck was learned from that book. Amazing product: subject, content, presentation and quality construction! My only complaint: I remember it was hard to make it fit on my bookshelf :)
- mylidlpony 2y ago> you should at least make sure that the new things you make don't net harm people or the world That's rich coming from pg. Is he really in a position to dispense this valuable advice? Did he ever look back at his contributions to this world through this prism? Does he consider the impacts of friends he has, platforms he uses and promotes, posts he writes, on lives of other people? Does he think just withdrawing from new decisions made by (the thing) is enough to wash his hands from all the negative impacts such decisions cause? People tend to attribute good outcomes to their own contributions and hand wave bad ones to forces outside their control, and this article is a great case in point for this phenomena.
- tim333 2y agoI don't think pg does net harm. Obviously funding hundreds of start ups you might think some iffy but overall it seems positive?
- mellosouls 2y agoIn lieu of explanation I'm guessing the flagging is knee-jerk anti-PG stuff. Disappointing response.
- sidcool 2y agoWhy are people anti-PG?
- mellosouls 2y agoI don't know except I get the impression from reading responses to him over time that he represents something frustrating to some people here and on X.
- an0malous 2y ago[flagged]
- smt88 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoRegardless of whom you're putting down, how right you are, or feel you are, comments like this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43370236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43370236 are badly against the site guidelines. Please don't post any more of these to HN. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- smt88 2y agoIt should be acceptable to criticize rich, powerful people in unemotional terms, but I wasn't even doing that. I was summarizing the other comments on this thread. Here are examples of comments (that remain visible) that I was summarizing: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43515252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43515252 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43526888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43526888 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43527106 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43527106 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43515723 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43515723 In the future I can be more careful to say something like, "Based on the comments here, people are saying that he..." but I thought that was implied in my comment already.
- sam_lowry_ 2y agoReminded me instantly of the 1845 text Who Is to Blame? [1] and the 1863 follow-up What Is to Be Done? [2] that defined progressive thought in Russian until the 1917 revolution. But this text is so escapist... I am ashamed to have read it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Is_to_Blame%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Is_to_Blame%3F [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F_(novel)
- sidcool 2y agoWhy is this flagged? Disagreements can be expressed in comments. Weird to be honest.
- nineplay 2y agoI’m starting to wonder if posters are flagging everything in response to the clear political censorship going on. If everything is flagged than nothing is flagged.
- bananapub 2y ago[flagged]
- sph 2y agoNothing like your embarrassment when you find out this very website is owned by YC. Protests are usually found outside the gates, not in the lounge while sipping on the complimentary coffee.
- dang 2y agoI appreciate your intentions but can you please not break the site guidelines the way you've been doing in this thread? It just makes things worse.
- aaron695 2y ago[dead]
- aptj 2y agoHey guys, while some of the criticism in the comments is pretty sound, keep in mind that genuine authors (and PG too) write first of all to entertain themselves, as a way to have a more clear reflection on their thinking. And they publish to learn from readers' responses.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- smt88 2y agoI don't understand the point of your comment. Are you saying we shouldn't take his seriously? We shouldn't take him literally? We should give him a pass for writing axiomatic drivel with nothing concrete or thoughtful in it?
- sph 2y ago[flagged]
- amriksohata 2y agoFind a higher purpose
- coolThingsFirst 2y agoEvery single essay is the same from this guy. Make something amazing is not an insight.
- tediousgraffit1 2y agoThis. No one, not even the very wicked, get up in the morning and think 'Im going to go make some old, bad stuff, because I'd like to decrease the amount of The Good in the world.' This article reads like the height of narcissistic navel-gazing, with absolutely zero nontrivial insight.
- kubb 2y agoShallow platitudes for nerds? I’ll inject them straight into my veins if the guy dealing has enough money. I mean is a successful tech entrepreneur and visionary.
- praptak 2y agoI disagree that creating new things should be prioritised[0]. There's too many things already and the most pressing problems have solutions which are not new, just hard to apply for political reasons. [0] Saying "prioritised" instead of "good", because "creating good new things" is tautologically, uninterestingly "good".
- mooktakim 2y agoNot everyone can create new things, or create new things all the time. The rest of the time they can make better use of existing things
- praptak 2y agoThat too, but my disagreement is more fundamental: even if you can create good new things, there are probably[0] better things to do with your resources than creating them. [0] This is a small escape hatch for "what if one can only create new things" or "actual cure for cancer".
- mooktakim 2y agoYes absolutely, you can do both. One good thing about new ideas is that it becomes an enabler for everyone else who are not working on new ideas. Similar to how technology democratises peoples abilities.
- spongebobstoes 2y agoIf something is difficult/impossible to apply for political reasons, maybe something new can make it easier/possible. It might be a new philosophy, message, movement, technology, space, gathering, poem, or otherwise. If something is so hard to do, for political reasons, it might be time to try something new. The goal might be the same, but maybe a new approach will yield better results.
- colonCapitalDee 2y agoPolitical problems can be solved with technical solutions. Take the problem of food insecurity in third-world countries as an example. It's a hard problem to solve because transporting food overland via unpaved roads through politically unstable areas is expensive and dangerous. Long-term, using highly-productive first-world agribusiness to feed the third-world will fail, because no matter how cheaply agribusiness can produce food the transportation costs will make the whole enterprise cost prohibitive. This is a political problem: we can easily produce enough food to feed the entire world, but we can't get that food to the places where it is most needed due to political instability. But it's a political problem with an engineering solution. If the tools and techniques needed to efficiently grow food are cheap and widely available, farmers in politically unstable areas can simply grow their own food without a dependence on far away agribusiness. GMO crops crafted for nutritional value and hardiness, easily accessible guides on farming best practices, weather forecasting, irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides, financial markets to hedge against risk, cheap tools and machinery; these are all unsolved or partially solved problems. Whenever someone comes up with a "good new thing" that improves the SOTA in terms of value per dollar in one of these areas, we get closer to solving the political problem of global food security. If political realities prevent us from solving problems, then we can either change the political realities or create new solutions. Individuals generally can't change political realities, but they can create good new things that work around them. So it is good advice.
- smokel 2y ago> For most of history the question "What should one do?" got much the same answer everywhere This is so not true, that I'd like to point the author, and people who think in a similar vein, to a very enjoyable podcast on the history of philosophy, namely the "History of Philosophy without any Gaps" [1]. Hopefully this will persuade you that there are many ways to think about what to do with the life that was given to you. Pick two random Greek philosophers and they would probably take opposing standpoints. And if Confucius might say that you should be wise, I guess that Lao Tse would promptly disagree. Our Western culture has largely been shaped by Christian values, yet when I observe the ideas of the obscenely wealthy, I can only lament how little those values seem to be understood or embodied. [1] https://historyofphilosophy.net/ https://historyofphilosophy.net/
- James_K 2y agoPG seems to love making grand statements like this regarding things about which he has little knowledge.
- abtinf 2y agoThe author has a phd in philosophy.
- smokel 2y agoThis comment is a bit puzzling to me. The author of the podcast does indeed have a PhD in philosophy, but Paul Graham does not. The latter holds a PhD in computer science.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- d4v3 2y agoI found myself thinking about something similar recently. It had to do with the Optifye.ai fiasco, and the difference between solving problems / creating things for the 'common man' vs. for the 'ruling class'. I think I much prefer the former.
- abc-1 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y ago"Don't be snarky." "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- James_K 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y ago"Don't be snarky." "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- James_K 2y agoI find your decision to quote these guidelines in this way both snarky and shallowly dismissive. If you can't follow your own guidelines, I certainly won't be jumping at the opportunity.
- very_good_man 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoWe've banned this account for using HN primarily for political battle and repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. p.s. No, we don't care about your politics. We care about preserving this forum, full stop.
- tlogan 2y agoI think the issue with saying “make good new things” is that things themselves aren’t inherently good or bad—they’re just things. It’s the person who makes them that can be good or bad. I have a saying (among others from my dad) that captures a similar idea: “Make things, and be good.”
- ulbu 2y agoa dish from made bad food is bad food. a program that deletes your important data is a bad program. so no: things relate to each other and in this relation, they can be objectively bad (bad to the object subjected to its effects). Things don't exist without the effects their existence exerts. Rephrased: the question of their goodness is, commonly, a question of fitness.
- tediousgraffit1 2y agoThat just pushes the question off a step; a chair fit for sitting isn't fit for sleeping, etc. Fitness assumes a purpose.
- allie1 2y agoI think it’s good in the sense of things that are positively affecting others’ lives.
- FloorEgg 2y agoThings can be good or bad when put in a value system context. There is tremendous overlap between everyone's value system, it just doesn't feel this way because the majority of most people's attention is on where they don't overlap. A loaf of bread is good for a person who is starving, but less good to someone with celiac disease. A bowl or rice is more good to a starving person with celiac than a loaf of bread, etc.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago> One should help people, and take care of the world. Those two are obvious. From what I encounter, almost daily, I don't think everyone is on the same page, on that; especially amongst folks of means. I have seen people without a pot to piss in, treat others -even complete strangers- with respect, love, caring, and patience, and folks with a lot of money, treat others most barbarously; especially when they consider those "others," to be folks that don't have the capability to hit back or stand up for themselves. As to what I do, I've been working to provide free software development to organizations that help each other, for a long time. It's usually worked out, but it is definitely a labor of love. The rewards aren't especially concrete. I'll never get an award, never make any money at it, and many of the folks that I have helped, have been fairly curt in their response. I do it anyway.
- copperx 2y agoI am really curious about your ethos here. It seems to me there's nothing for you in it. either psychologal, social, or financially. Is it more like a calling? a spiritual consolation?
- dartos 2y ago> it is definitely a labor of love Some people do things because they like doing those things…
- copperx 2y ago> Some people do things because they like doing those things… If that's the case, that means there's something in it for you, enjoyment.
- dartos 2y agoSure, why not.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y agoYup. I’ve always liked doing this stuff, and it’s nice to have means, and an excuse to do it.
- old_man_cato 2y ago[flagged]
- wcfrobert 2y ago> "Criticism seems sophisticated, and making new things often seems awkward, especially at first; and yet it's precisely those first steps that are most rare and valuable." This is what makes silicon valley is so amazing. It's filled with those who want to make good new things, who aren't afraid of looking awkward. This type of culture is actually quite weird. In most other places, you'd be dissuaded by conventional wisdom, or "who-do-you-think-you-are-isms".
- KPGv2 2y ago> It's filled with those who want to make good new things It's crazy you think this is even remotely unique to SV. Broad swaths of the country (referred to as "flyover" by coastal people) are fully employed in the production of new things that are essential to the survival of the human race. Just, for some reason, you think "new things" is just bleep bloop and not moo oink.
- asadotzler 2y agoMaybe 25 years ago. Hardly today. Today it's Big Tech, hardly different from Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Finance, etc.
- KPGv2 2y ago[flagged]
- aoanevdus 2y agoWhy even go through the effort of making a criticism when you can satisfy the urge simply by pointing and implying one exists?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dang 2y ago"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- giardini 2y agoA good idea and one that Elon Musk tries to do. But he chose to go into politics too. Now his every move (even every past move) seems to be under scrutiny and politicized. Of course, this isn't the first time this has happened, but it is unfortunate that human behavior today is so.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jebarker 2y agoI don't believe you can choose to make good (whatever that means) things. You can certainly choose not to try, but choosing to try and believing you'll succeed is a recipe for disappointment in my opinion. All you can do is make a sincere effort at whatever you choose to do and the world will decide if it's good or not.
- onemoresoop 2y agoYou can use it as a guiding principle and go about your life.
- asadotzler 2y agoYou can choose NOT to make things you know are bad and you can choose to try to make things that are good. Disappointment is irrelevant. It's the choice that matters in the context of this article and discussion and pretending that there is no choice is cowardice.
- jebarker 2y agoWhich of my four uses of choose/choosing made you think I was pretending there was no choice? My point is that the choice is to try and do something as best you can, but you can't choose whether it'll be received as a "good thing", that's out of your hands.
- onemoresoop 2y agoI find this essay quite bland, inane even.
- mvdtnz 2y ago[flagged]
- sfpotter 2y agoI find that with Paul Graham's writing, once you stop and think about what he's saying, almost nothing he says holds up under scrutiny. He's basically just a propagandist for VC-backed startups and a certain concomitant worldview.
- skeeter2020 2y ago20 years old in a few days; still relevant: https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm Read his entire body of work if you want deep thought, thorough research and definitive opinions.
- mola 2y ago[flagged]
- dachworker 2y agoI think people are being a bit too negative and maybe that is because they are not used to pg's style of slogans in baby talk. I think the gist of what pg is saying is that you should have some agency and initiative and not spend your whole life being the side character in other people's stories. This serves two purposes. First of all, it maximizes your chances of gaining wealth, power and influence. And secondly if you care to make the world a better place, it also increases your chances of having an impact. The novelty is important, because, tautologically, if your are just copying others, you are still a side character in their story. However, I do not think this should be read as, "create the next unicorn startup". I think it is rather a principle to live by. Like for example, if you have three job offers, go for the one that allows you to build something new, rather than the one where your task is to manage a legacy product. Or for example, let's say you move to a new city and you are a bit disappointed with the activities that are available for your kids. You can either try to convince your kids to attend the available activities or you can try to organize a new after school club.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bloomingeek 2y agoWhat to Do- besides the help others and care of the world, plan for your future retirement, most don't. Seek education by reading as much as you can. Stay interested in your family. Desperately seek out beauty. Cultivate your sense of humor, even if it's a little snarky. Be who you want to be, as long as it won't hurt anyone, including yourself. (I'm afraid too many of us are afraid to stand out today, group mentality, on the whole, is toxic and can lead to "us vs them" stupidity.) What not to do (just as important)- Suck. Be nosy, passive aggressive, judgmental or hateful. Allow yourself to be duped because you're to lazy to seek out information.
- pugio 2y ago(No implied critique of the actual essay) but when I saw that title from PG, I was really hoping it would address the 2025 question "What should one do now?" At a time when it seems like so many pursuits or activities or things to make are overshadowed by " but won't there be a model in the next 6 months that can just do this itself?", not to mention all the other present world uncertainties... Well, it would be nice to hear more thought as to how to focus one's energies. (I have my own thoughts on this of course, but what I'm really advocating / hoping for is more strong takes on the question.)
- jstanley 2y ago> "but won't there be a model in the next 6 months that can just do this itself?" Then you've got 6 months to cement your place in history as one of the last humans ever to have accomplished that thing before AI could do it. Hurry! (More generally, even if you don't care about AI: if you think you might want to do something, then depending on your age you've got maybe 50 years to do it before you've squandered your opportunity. Hurry!)
- sidcool 2y agoGlad this has been unflagged. It's a boring essay, with nothing of substance said, but that doesn't make it worth flagging.
- FloorEgg 2y agoI've found many of pg's essays very illuminating, but a few of the more recent ones seem less well thought out. Maybe I've just learned a lot over the last decade and it's me who has changed, or maybe his process has changed. The first thought I had after reading the thesis of the essay is that some people don't make new things but instead maintain important things. I'm more of a builder and if wager pg considers himself one, and I assume the majority of authentic HN users are builders. However I suspect the majority of people are maintainers. Nurses, electricians, emergency dispatchers, firefighters, mechanics, etc. We all depend on many complex systems working in order for our lives to not fall apart. Our homes, electricity, running water, soap manufacturing, etc. Choosing to be someone who makes sure these systems keep working is a good thing to do and deserves respect and appreciation. Someday AI may do all this stuff, but someday AI may build all the new things too... So my response to this specific essay: PG, your answer is incomplete and biased towards your own values. ikigai does a better job of answering this question already, why not build on it? Also thanks for your writing, don't stop. My biased answer to the question: - do lots of different things and stay curious, and with enough time, effort and luck you will find something you're good at, enjoy, the world wants, and will reward you with all the resources you need and then some. Just keep doing different things and being curious until you get there. One last thought: Is PG publishing less robust essays in hopes that people will be more compelled to comment and discuss them, bringing together the best ideas on the topic? Something like "the best way to get a question answered on the internet is to post the wrong answer" or however that goes...
- pedalpete 2y agoI had completely the same thought. No everyone is a creator, and we don't want to bias the world into everyone being a creator, or a scientist, or an engineer. Today, I feel we have far too much of a focus on "business" and all my nieces and nephew are studying some sort of business focus in their university degrees. I feel it such a waste. If everyone in the world learns to only make businesses (ignoring that a degree is not required for that), who is going to build. If everyone becomes a maker, who is going to support all the non-maker roles. There are many people for whom their job is not their craft. They're focus - much as PGs now is, is the raising of their family, guiding their children to become good people, showing love, etc etc. Some may argue this is "making", but that's maybe a different argument. Your last thought is an interesting one, I hadn't heard the quote before.
- bob1029 2y ago> On the other hand, if you make something amazing, you'll often be helping people or the world even if you didn't mean to. Newton was driven by curiosity and ambition, not by any practical effect his work might have, and yet the practical effect of his work has been enormous. And this seems the rule rather than the exception. So if you think you can make something amazing, you should probably just go ahead and do it. I dislike the way this is framed and I think the rule/exception are inverted. Certainly, building the jet engine or microprocessor is a big uplift on all boats, but the chances you pull one of these out of the hat are pretty low. I spent a good chunk of my career attempting to build things that I thought were amazing. It took a lot of drama and disappointment to discover that helping other people means meeting them where they are at right now, not where I want them to be.
- nashashmi 2y agoYeah , the missing ingredient here is “SERVE PEOPLE”. That needs a market familiarity .
- pj_mukh 2y agoThis maybe a little reductionist. To bring the jet engine and/or microprocessor to a point where it could uplift all boats took probably millions of people. You can choose to be one of those people and you'd be working on something amazing. You don't have to be the originator, the follow-on supporters are just as important.
- fulafel 2y agoThe jet engine is now a big contributor to the climate catastrophe[1] and one that lacks a low carbon replacement in the needed timeframe. In 100 years I'd wager it's seen more like a villain in history. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
- geenat 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- andromaton 2y agoSince you know it's not ai written, and very unlikely AI influenced, you are saying you can't distinguish the two. Im not claiming I can.
- asadotzler 2y agoHow do we know it's not. Maybe PG wrote it and had AI "clean it up" or "transform it" for a particular audience, or any number of things AI might have conjured up here. If you cannot demonstrate that PG wrote the entirety of this himself with no AI help, then your comment is mostly worthless.
- SquibblesRedux 2y agoI can say what not to do -- Do not ever work to strip others of their free will.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoCould bankrolling cryptocoin and AI businesses ever cause people to lose their freedom? Asking for a friend
- TheAlchemist 2y agoSide question - why do all PG essays are formatted in a such a narrow text column ?
- indigoabstract 2y agoJust a guess, but I think it's because that's how web sites were in the '90s. People had pretty low res screens back then.
- jgord 2y agoPeople should just choose to have wealthier parents, then they have more options from which to chose what to do - breed dogs, travel, get a degree in a totally useless but culturally enriching subject, make some great garage music, tinker with inventing or explore some arcane area of math, have kids, read voraciously, write a bad game or operating system etc. It seems these sorts of things happened more in the 1980s, when we had lower inequality - middle class post-teens could pretend to study while actually learning something in their free time. Now students are burdened with debt before they even get started, and have too many part time gig jobs to attend lectures, or mope around the campus having random conversations that challenge their ideas.
- luhsprwhk 2y ago"Make good new things" is the thesis, which is about as vague as the rest of the article. The other one is "good people make good things" which is just naive. Examples: too many to name but since this is a science forum, James Watson and John Von Neumann. A "good" motivation doesn’t guarantee a good outcome, nor does a bad outcome ensure a good one.
- NalNezumi 2y agoI kinda disagree with PG on this one. What we should do is not "make good new things" but "maintain things that work and improve upon it". We have too many people that WANT to make new things. Ideally good, but when so many people value NEW things we obfuscate what good means. Maintaining thing that works includes everything: it makes you learn something,(how can you maintain something you don't understand?) often structured and you stand on a giants shoulder. Since it have been maintained so far, most likely it's also valuable. But also, most likely it can be improved upon. I think PGs essay here actually go against his previous post of "Great Work". In this essay he mention art needs to be new/unique but usually art (and fashion) is cyclic; they reuse and rehash old ideas all the time. And even in science, such as Einstein and Newton, they usually just IMPROVE on the existing understanding, although in a major way. Is newness essential? Not really in the modern attention based economy of 2025. Newness chasers are often similar to clout chasers. More noise there and you'll end up surrounding yourself with style over substance kind of people.
- tiffanyh 2y agoMeta comment but … I find the title of “What to do” vs. “What should one do” (topic first sentence) to mean two slightly different things.
- crossroadsguy 2y agoWho reads his blog posts like these? Okay, I'd try to frame it this way - who does he write his blog posts for? No, I am not trying to say he mustn't, but I am just curious because it's hn and he is, like what, founder of hn or creator or so (?); and whenever one of his blog posts is posted here, it gains a lot of traction. I find them really sterile, trite, and filled with basic abstracts and attempted philosophy. Oh, by the way people love to call it "essays" here, not blog posts - oh no, no - "essays" it is. I see brilliant blog posts posted here on hn and they don't even make more than few comments which can be counted on a single palm (palm as if on human hand, not the device) and then his posts just get comments after comments. What intrigues me is a lot of those comments are just trying to guesstimate, assume, interpret on his behalf what he tried to say - like when you stare at an art piece in a museum, which is just three straight lines and a dot on an otherwise blank canvas, you hear someone explain to someone else few feet away - how that art captures the sublime, infinity, futility of life, and concision, among other heavy worded things, at the same time. So, these posts err.. essays.. of his are pieces of abstract textual art that arrive here to be interpreted by commenters and also for admiration and mandatory vc adulation (maybe)? Or maybe since he is rich now and is influential in making other people rich, lots of them actually, he gets to post whatever it is and also gets to make them gain traction. Yeah, this makes sense. Of course. Or maybe I am from the crowd that doesn't understand modern art of making money at all; obviously.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- fud101 2y agoi'd rather never see another PG post if possible but unfortunately he is very prolific..
- neilv 2y agoMy impression (as an observer since before YC started) is that some of PG's early writings were very influential on the startup scene -- separate from his obviously very influential doings through YC over the years. Nowadays, I skim PG articles when they hit HN, for maybe roughly 3 reasons: 1. To see if there's anything interesting to me. 2. Curiosity about what the writing says about him, or what he might be doing. (Why did he choose this topic, how is he thinking, what messages is he trying to send, why, does this hint at some other actions he's taking with his influence and resources, etc.) 3. As background for skimming HN comments. (Mainly, what's the gist of the sentiment of various HN demographics, when prompted by the PG post. Lately, I think my intent is mostly hopeful or curious, not seeking out something to be angry about.)
- aatd86 2y agoOne should remain curious and improve.
- android521 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoPlease don't post these to HN.
- dfabulich 2y agoIt seems strange that pg identifies "make good new things" as a "third thing" alongside helping people and taking care of the world. Intuitively, I'd have thought "making good new things" would be a tactic to helping people and/or taking care of the world. If I ask him "What new good thing should I make?" surely his answer has to be, "Make something people want," right?? I'm not even sure the new things are "good" unless people want them, or if new things aren't making the world better in some way. pg notes in the last paragraph that there's "often" a lot of overlap between making good new things, helping people, and helping the world, but it seems like even pg is forgetting his own motto…?
- pdonis 2y ago"you should at least make sure that the new things you make don't net harm people or the world." How well has Y Combinator done at upholding this principle with the companies it funds?
- hackernewds 2y agoit has done very well IMHO
- aryehof 2y agoI think what to do is a more personal thing, from which one takes care of others and the world:- Smile, be kind and have compassion, don't judge others unfairly, do what is good and right, say only good things of others, and don't remain silent or inactive in the face of true injustice or cruelty. Respect all life. This is the human challenge and journey. To this I would also add in these difficult times… Understand that much of what we are told is opinion rather than fact. Our own formed opinions and views based on them should be considered potentially unreliable and should be questioned.
- fud101 2y agoI wonder if PG feels a pang of regret since he joined the cause to elect Trump 2.0. Does he think his anti wokeness contributions helped make the world a better place? Thanks for making the world better PG.
- fedeb95 2y agoWhile making a good thing is easy, avoiding harm is way more difficult. My impression.
- DeathArrow 2y ago"Make good new things." But what are the good new things? The new part is pretty clear, as in something that wasn't done before. But what does the adjective "good" mean when applied to "new things"? The author says you should make sure "new things you make don't net harm people or the world." I'd argue that the world has no meaning without people, so not "net harming people" is what he can mean. But how can one know if things will produce net harm or not? I think we can even quantify after the fact if discovering gunpowder or dynamite is producing net harm or not. We can't decide if discovery of nuclear fission and nuclear fusion is producing a net harm or not. Of course, for some "things" it's easy to say if they produce a net harm or not, i.e. producing a biological weapon or a vaccine. And what if the result of our struggle, be it a scientific endeavor or not, while "new" and certainty not harmful doesn't produce any impact whatsoever? Maybe we come up with something that will be usable in a few years, a few decades, e few hundreds of years years or never. So, should be there an impact? Shouldn't we strive to produce something that is not only not harmful but useful? I think that we should give some more thought about the "good" part.
- nvader 2y agoI sometimes think about Thomas Midgeley, inventory of leaded petrol, chlorofluorocarbons, and the traction device that ultimately ended up killing him in a hospital bed.
- Animats 2y agoSomething that's positive-sum, not zero-sum.
- qznc 2y ago> The kind of people who make good new things don't need rules to keep them honest. Seriously? People have done horrible things in the name of "progress". For example, shipping slaves from another continent to make good new things.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- theGnuMe 2y agoI'd like to see his notes on Raymond Chandler and why he considers him one of the best writers. Or why does anyone? I guess that would be an essay on literary criticism. What is interesting is if you read Chandler's Wikipedia entry it has a quote on how he talked about pulp fiction being formulaic and attempts to break free of the formula were trounced but if you didn't try you'd have been a hopeless hack. This is fascinating in comparison that PGs formulism appears to be a self-styled self-help (?) essay. Is PG stuck or trying to break free? He certainly has an audience. To what quality should we ascribe his writing?
- lo_zamoyski 2y agoSuch questions were part of a classical education, and in the past, no person with a university degree would not have had at least a basic speculative grasp of the subject. To respond, I would first want to make a few distinctions, as the language in the essay is muddled. I distinguish between three classes of acts that human beings can perform, namely, theoria, praxis, and poiesis. 1. theoria concerns acts that aim at knowledge, understanding, and wisdom; the aim is truth for its own sake 2. praxis concerns acts performed for their own sake; these are the primary subject of ethics, the practical philosophy 3. poiesis concerns acts of production where the end is distinct from the act that produces it as an effect Paul claims that "[t]he most impressive thing humans can do is to think. It may be the most impressive thing that can be done". I agree that "thinking", or precisely the capacity for intentionality, abstraction of concepts, and the ability to reason about them (to which I would add the capacity to choose between apprehended alternatives) is, indeed, the most impressive and indeed most distinctive thing human beings are capable of. These constitute our rationality. However, what is the highest expression of this capacity? Paul claims that "the best kind of thinking, or more precisely the best proof that one has thought well, is to make good new things". This is confusing, as "the best kind of thinking" and "the best proof one has thought well" are talking about two different things. It's not clear what exactly the point here is in relation to the prior claim. Are we talking about the best kind of thinking or the best proof of having though well? And what about it? "So what should one do? One should help people, and take care of the world. Those two are obvious. [...] Taking care of people and the world are shoulds in the sense that they're one's duty, but making good new things is a should in the sense that this is how to live to one's full potential." Paul says such things are "duties" and that they are "obvious". Perhaps they are, in some sense, or perhaps these are hazy cultural attitudes he has absorbed that may not be obvious elsewhere, whether true or not. But what is the basis for such duties? What is their explanation? What is the basis of the good? Of morality? Of the normative (the "shoulds")? The reason I harp on this point is because had Paul had a basic grasp of something like virtue ethics, he would have found that human nature is the foundation and basis for the objective good and thus for objective morality. He would have found the key that could systematically reconcile and explain and relate all these seemingly arbitrary "shoulds" he lists. He would have a basis for evaluating the place of theoria, praxis, and poiesis in the context of human nature, the good life, and the end of human life (its ultimate good). We could then answer questions like "what is the best expression of human rationality?" Is it production as in poiesis? Or praxis? Or perhaps theoria? I claim it is theoria, and this does nothing to diminish the importance and the good of praxis or poiesis. They simply are not the highest expression of human rationality. They play supporting roles methodologically (and this is where Paul's comment about "proof of one has thought well" can enter the discussion), but they are not the end. "There was a long stretch where in some parts of the world the answer became "Serve God," but in practice it was still considered good to be wise, brave, honest, temperate, and just, uphold tradition, and serve the public interest. [...] for example by saying, as some Christians have, that it's one's duty to make the most of one's God-given gifts. But this seems one of those casuistries people invented to evade the stern requirements of religion: you could spend time studying math instead of praying or performing acts of charity because otherwise you were rejecting a gift God had given you." Why is "serving God" construed as distinct from "wise, brave, honest, temperate, and just" and so on? Why can't these be part of what it means to "serve God"? Why are we setting them in opposition as if they were in competition with one another rather than one and the same thing? Apparently, Paul is unaware of the parable of the talents in Matthew's gospel, or the five tasks given Mankind in Genesis by which Mankind better participates in the life of the Trinity, let alone the metaphysical "obviousness" of this being the case. The demonstrated grasp of "religion" in general (if we may even speak of it in general in any meaningful way) and "Christianity" in particular leave much to be desired, to put it mildly. I feel as if I'm reading the superficial tropes of a lazy observer rather than a sound grasp of the basics. If anything, as Stanley Jaki among others argue, the reason why we saw an explosion of sustained scientific progress and techne in the West is because it follows from Christian principles, like the notion that all of the created order is inherently and totally intelligible (I would claim best expressed in John 1:1); that human beings are capable of grasping this intelligible reality (rooted, I would say, in the Imago Dei); the notion of the logos spermatikos; the distinction between creator (first causality) and created (second causality); the notion that human beings are "co-creators" (or "sub-creators", to use Tolkien's term) cooperating with God in the work of creation; and so on. These provide strong motivations to pursue this kind of work in a sustained and intense fashion. If you don't believe that the world is rational, that human beings can understand it, that it is somehow evil to investigate it, that religious texts are the only source of human knowledge (or even epistemically primary), that such texts can contradict truths known by unaided reason, that effort is futile and pointless, then you're not going to accomplish much. "But there's nothing in it about taking care of the world or making new things, and that's a bit worrying, because it seems like this question should be a timeless one. [...] Obviously people only started to care about that once it became clear we could ruin it." Obviously? I seem to recall Genesis giving men the authority of stewardship over the earth. I don't think the ancients doubted they could ruin the earth (ask a farmer), even if they did not know the scale at which we could eventually do so, but then this is not a matter of having or lacking said care, but a matter of prudential application of care. "The traditional answers were answers to a slightly different question. They were answers to the question of how to be, rather than what to do." Doing is act and being is act. Doing has as its ultimate end being, or else it is unintelligible. They are not opposed. "Archimedes knew that he was the first to prove that a sphere has 2/3 the volume of the smallest enclosing cylinder and was very pleased about it. But you don't find ancient writers urging their readers to emulate him. They regarded him more as a prodigy than a model. [...] his contemporaries would have found it strange to treat as a distinct group, because the vein of people making new things ran at right angles to the social hierarchy." I don't know what this means. He maintained relations with other scholars. Some scholars and philosophers ran their own schools (Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, etc), some did not.