4 ms·

"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times." This happens via brain connections and br

"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times." This happens via brain connections and brain activity. The good times means less tribulations and the weak men simply havent formed the brain pathways. AI makes for 'good times' and the easy 'low brain engagement' is the identified problem. These scanned folks likely are using AI wrong. Never ask AI "summarize this book" for me. You're missing out on reading the book. What if you read the book and then ask "What did this book miss?" or "give me ideas on what i can do to expand on the ideas in this book" The way i look at it, dont 'reduce' only 'expand' The way I found this, back in the day video games were awesome and then an EXPANSION was added that expanded the game. So when working on my open source projects, I was always asking 'whats the next expansion?" Something that i love asking ai. "Here's my project and what it does. What are the next big ideas that can be added."

rcxdude 1y ago
>"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times." This is an aphorism that mostly doesn't bear out historically. Good times tended to make people wealthy, and wealthy people tended to be stronger, not weaker.
- hombre_fatal 1y ago
  It's definitely a trite aphorism, but presumably it's talking about endurance in the face of adversity, not physical strength. I've thought of that aphorism from time to time when I encounter people on vacation here in Mexico, let's say, who seem to become a wreck when some small thing doesn't go as they'd liked. Like the kitchen is outside next to the pool, so there's no A/C and how dreadful is that. And the boy at the cenote charged them 60 pesos ($3) while a sign says that resident Mexicans only pay 30 pesos and that's unfair for someone who has 10x the wage of the resident Mexicans. And someone had a chicken on the bus going to Guadalajara. And now they're going to grumble with their spouse for six hours over it. And there was an iguana in their shower this morning so now they're getting management involved. I'm thinking this is a weak, pathetic man crippled by a life too comfortable.
  - rcxdude 1y ago
    Griping isn't necessarily a sign of how much someone will put up with, when they put their minds to it, though. It may be a sign of unreasonably high expectations, but not necessarily willpower.
    - hombre_fatal 1y ago
      Griping exposes your internal state about an adverse event. Not all adversity should be endured, that's true. Like dealing with an evil manager at work. But when someone finds a line of leaf cutter ants in front of their hotel door or a shower iguana to be something worth bickering over with management despite booking a trip to the subtropics, they've been rotted by comfortable times.
- incomingpain 1y ago
  >This is an aphorism that mostly doesn't bear out historically. Good times tended to make people wealthy, and wealthy people tended to be stronger, not weaker. I wholly agree with the aphorism and it's a defeatable law; but perhaps it's not exactly clear who they mean. It's not about father-son type situation. It's completely unclear what 'strong' they even mean. Not to mention the other law that's counter to this in that who is defining weak vs strong? My argument against the aphorism is the cycles can be happening out of sync. It's not like 100% of men are weak in any era. It's not that you cant intentionally break the cycle. Rockefellers, Buffet, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and andrew Carnegie are all perfect examples of breaking out of the cycle. Perhaps we need to rewrite the saying: Difficult times forge resilient people, resilient people build prosperous societies, prosperity breeds complacency and dependence, complacency and dependence usher in difficult times.
  - bootsmann 1y ago
    You're still falling into the historicist trap of thinking that a societies future development can be inferred from it's history (which is simply untrue because the future of knowledge is fundamentally unpredictable, how would we know what we will know in the future without knowing it). Also historically, difficult times don't breed resilient people, the dark age was a millennium long.
    - incomingpain 1y ago
      >You're still falling into the historicist trap of thinking that a societies future development can be inferred from it's history (which is simply untrue because the future of knowledge is fundamentally unpredictable, how would we know what we will know in the future without knowing it). Not only can future development be inferred, you can see the pattern in history. The consequences of weak men. Reconstruction -> third great awakening -> world war 1 -> roaring 20s -> world war 2 -> golden age of capitalism -> 4th great awakening -> culture wars, 9/11, tech bubbles -> great recession, covid, etc Or to look at what we're in right now. Glorious revolution 1701 + 75 years = age of revolution 1776 + 84 years = civil war 1860 + 79 years = world war 2 1939 + 80 years = 2019 The cycle is 4 movements in 80 years adjusting every 20 years. Hence the 4 parts of strong men create good times. >Also historically, difficult times don't breed resilient people, the dark age was a millennium long. This is where you're confused. This isn't a situation where the USA is doing great and 100% of people are strong, then create a generation of 100% weak people. During the civil war, there was weak and strong people. then during reconstruction there was weak and strong people.
probably_wrong 1y ago
> These scanned folks likely are using AI wrong. This feels like victim blaming. If the tool can be so easily misused that the participants in this study "used it wrong" by default, then were are the safeguards? How are these companies nudging the users in the "right" direction? The way I see it, if there's nothing in the system telling you that you're using it "wrong" then you're using it exactly as intended.
- incomingpain 1y ago
  A hammer can be so easily misused in that you can try to knock in nails using the claw side. How come nobody is telling them to use the other side? If the hammer doesnt have instructions on the side to say to use the hammer side, then it's being used exactly as intended.
  - probably_wrong 1y ago
    I have seen here and there people try to use the wrong side of a hammer, usually either small children or people with no experience at all using hammers. But the second you show them the right way it sticks: the sides are visually different and, more important, the right side works better. What I've never seen in my life is a random group of 9 people (per the study) where all of them consistently use the wrong side of the hammer repeatedly across four sessions.

rcxdude 1y ago

>"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times." This is an aphorism that mostly doesn't bear out historically. Good times tended to make people wealthy, and wealthy people tended to be stronger, not weaker.

hombre_fatal 1y ago
It's definitely a trite aphorism, but presumably it's talking about endurance in the face of adversity, not physical strength. I've thought of that aphorism from time to time when I encounter people on vacation here in Mexico, let's say, who seem to become a wreck when some small thing doesn't go as they'd liked. Like the kitchen is outside next to the pool, so there's no A/C and how dreadful is that. And the boy at the cenote charged them 60 pesos ($3) while a sign says that resident Mexicans only pay 30 pesos and that's unfair for someone who has 10x the wage of the resident Mexicans. And someone had a chicken on the bus going to Guadalajara. And now they're going to grumble with their spouse for six hours over it. And there was an iguana in their shower this morning so now they're getting management involved. I'm thinking this is a weak, pathetic man crippled by a life too comfortable.
- rcxdude 1y ago
  Griping isn't necessarily a sign of how much someone will put up with, when they put their minds to it, though. It may be a sign of unreasonably high expectations, but not necessarily willpower.
  - hombre_fatal 1y ago
    Griping exposes your internal state about an adverse event. Not all adversity should be endured, that's true. Like dealing with an evil manager at work. But when someone finds a line of leaf cutter ants in front of their hotel door or a shower iguana to be something worth bickering over with management despite booking a trip to the subtropics, they've been rotted by comfortable times.
incomingpain 1y ago
>This is an aphorism that mostly doesn't bear out historically. Good times tended to make people wealthy, and wealthy people tended to be stronger, not weaker. I wholly agree with the aphorism and it's a defeatable law; but perhaps it's not exactly clear who they mean. It's not about father-son type situation. It's completely unclear what 'strong' they even mean. Not to mention the other law that's counter to this in that who is defining weak vs strong? My argument against the aphorism is the cycles can be happening out of sync. It's not like 100% of men are weak in any era. It's not that you cant intentionally break the cycle. Rockefellers, Buffet, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and andrew Carnegie are all perfect examples of breaking out of the cycle. Perhaps we need to rewrite the saying: Difficult times forge resilient people, resilient people build prosperous societies, prosperity breeds complacency and dependence, complacency and dependence usher in difficult times.
- bootsmann 1y ago
  You're still falling into the historicist trap of thinking that a societies future development can be inferred from it's history (which is simply untrue because the future of knowledge is fundamentally unpredictable, how would we know what we will know in the future without knowing it). Also historically, difficult times don't breed resilient people, the dark age was a millennium long.
  - incomingpain 1y ago
    >You're still falling into the historicist trap of thinking that a societies future development can be inferred from it's history (which is simply untrue because the future of knowledge is fundamentally unpredictable, how would we know what we will know in the future without knowing it). Not only can future development be inferred, you can see the pattern in history. The consequences of weak men. Reconstruction -> third great awakening -> world war 1 -> roaring 20s -> world war 2 -> golden age of capitalism -> 4th great awakening -> culture wars, 9/11, tech bubbles -> great recession, covid, etc Or to look at what we're in right now. Glorious revolution 1701 + 75 years = age of revolution 1776 + 84 years = civil war 1860 + 79 years = world war 2 1939 + 80 years = 2019 The cycle is 4 movements in 80 years adjusting every 20 years. Hence the 4 parts of strong men create good times. >Also historically, difficult times don't breed resilient people, the dark age was a millennium long. This is where you're confused. This isn't a situation where the USA is doing great and 100% of people are strong, then create a generation of 100% weak people. During the civil war, there was weak and strong people. then during reconstruction there was weak and strong people.

probably_wrong 1y ago

> These scanned folks likely are using AI wrong. This feels like victim blaming. If the tool can be so easily misused that the participants in this study "used it wrong" by default, then were are the safeguards? How are these companies nudging the users in the "right" direction? The way I see it, if there's nothing in the system telling you that you're using it "wrong" then you're using it exactly as intended.

incomingpain 1y ago
A hammer can be so easily misused in that you can try to knock in nails using the claw side. How come nobody is telling them to use the other side? If the hammer doesnt have instructions on the side to say to use the hammer side, then it's being used exactly as intended.
- probably_wrong 1y ago
  I have seen here and there people try to use the wrong side of a hammer, usually either small children or people with no experience at all using hammers. But the second you show them the right way it sticks: the sides are visually different and, more important, the right side works better. What I've never seen in my life is a random group of 9 people (per the study) where all of them consistently use the wrong side of the hammer repeatedly across four sessions.