3 ms·

Im gonna go against the grain and say he is an elite expert on some dimensions, but when you take all the characteristics into account (including an understandi

by sdf2erf 8mo ago

Im gonna go against the grain and say he is an elite expert on some dimensions, but when you take all the characteristics into account (including an understanding of people etc) I conclude that on the whole he is not as intelligent as you think. Its the same reason why a pure technologist can fail spectacularly at developing products that deliver experiences that people want.

newyankee 8mo ago
More like people know where to hype, whom to avoid criticising unless measured etc. I have rarely seen him criticising Elon's vision only approach and that made me skeptical.
- sdf2erf 8mo ago
  I personally dont believe he is trying to profit off the hype. I believe he is an individual who wants to believe he is a genius and his word is gospel. Being picked by Elon perhaps amplified that too.
- CamperBob2 8mo ago
  Unfortunately my understanding is that he originated the vision-only approach while at Tesla. As in, he's the one who sold Musk on the idea in the first place. I don't have time to dig up the citation that someone pointed me towards, but it's out there and can be found. Which is a bummer, because I've learned a lot from his videos and writing and have a lot of respect for his work.
aleph_minus_one 8mo ago
> Im gonna go against the grain and say he is an elite expert on some dimensions, but when you take all the characteristics into account (including an understanding of people etc) I conclude that on the whole he is not as intelligent as you think. Intelligence (which psychologists define as the g factor [1]; this concept is very well-researched) does not make you an expert on any given topic. It just, for example, typically enables you to learn new topics faster, and lets you see connections between topics. If Karpathy did not spend a serious effort of learning to get a good understanding of people, it's likely that he is not an expert on this topic (which I guess basically nobody would expect). Also, while being a rationalist very likely requires you to be rather intelligent, only a (I guess rather small) fraction of highly intelligent people are rationalists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
- sdf2erf 8mo ago
  " Karpathy did not spend a serious effort of learning to get a good understanding of people This does not come from spending effort in learning people - its more innate. You either have it or you dont. E.g. you cant learn to be 'empathetic'. It always boggles my mind when people dont consider genetic factors.
  - aleph_minus_one 8mo ago
    Being empathic is different from "understanding people". Psychopaths and narcissists often have a good understanding of many people, which they use to manipulate them, but psychopaths and narcissists are not what most people would call "empathic".
    - sdf2erf 8mo ago
      They dont understand people. They understand how to control people, which is completely different from the context of building products that people want - which requires an understanding of peoples tastes and preferences.
      - aleph_minus_one 8mo ago
        > which is completely different from the context of building products that people want - which requires an understanding of peoples tastes and preferences. Rather: it requires an understanding how to manipulate people into loving/wanting your product.
  - pluralmonad 8mo ago
    You are what you do. If you want to develop your empathy, spend time/energy consciously trying to put yourself in the shoes of others. Eventually, you will not have to apply so much deliberate effort. Same way most things work.
  - bwfan123 8mo ago
    > you cant learn to be 'empathetic'. I would tend to disagree. The tech types have a strong intellectual center, but weaker emotional and movement centers. I think a realignment is possible with practice. It takes time, and as one grows older, the centers begin to integrate better.

by sdf2erf 8mo ago

newyankee 8mo ago

More like people know where to hype, whom to avoid criticising unless measured etc. I have rarely seen him criticising Elon's vision only approach and that made me skeptical.

sdf2erf 8mo ago
I personally dont believe he is trying to profit off the hype. I believe he is an individual who wants to believe he is a genius and his word is gospel. Being picked by Elon perhaps amplified that too.
CamperBob2 8mo ago
Unfortunately my understanding is that he originated the vision-only approach while at Tesla. As in, he's the one who sold Musk on the idea in the first place. I don't have time to dig up the citation that someone pointed me towards, but it's out there and can be found. Which is a bummer, because I've learned a lot from his videos and writing and have a lot of respect for his work.

aleph_minus_one 8mo ago

> Im gonna go against the grain and say he is an elite expert on some dimensions, but when you take all the characteristics into account (including an understanding of people etc) I conclude that on the whole he is not as intelligent as you think. Intelligence (which psychologists define as the g factor [1]; this concept is very well-researched) does not make you an expert on any given topic. It just, for example, typically enables you to learn new topics faster, and lets you see connections between topics. If Karpathy did not spend a serious effort of learning to get a good understanding of people, it's likely that he is not an expert on this topic (which I guess basically nobody would expect). Also, while being a rationalist very likely requires you to be rather intelligent, only a (I guess rather small) fraction of highly intelligent people are rationalists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

sdf2erf 8mo ago
" Karpathy did not spend a serious effort of learning to get a good understanding of people This does not come from spending effort in learning people - its more innate. You either have it or you dont. E.g. you cant learn to be 'empathetic'. It always boggles my mind when people dont consider genetic factors.
- aleph_minus_one 8mo ago
  Being empathic is different from "understanding people". Psychopaths and narcissists often have a good understanding of many people, which they use to manipulate them, but psychopaths and narcissists are not what most people would call "empathic".
  - sdf2erf 8mo ago
    They dont understand people. They understand how to control people, which is completely different from the context of building products that people want - which requires an understanding of peoples tastes and preferences.
    - aleph_minus_one 8mo ago
      > which is completely different from the context of building products that people want - which requires an understanding of peoples tastes and preferences. Rather: it requires an understanding how to manipulate people into loving/wanting your product.
- pluralmonad 8mo ago
  You are what you do. If you want to develop your empathy, spend time/energy consciously trying to put yourself in the shoes of others. Eventually, you will not have to apply so much deliberate effort. Same way most things work.
- bwfan123 8mo ago
  > you cant learn to be 'empathetic'. I would tend to disagree. The tech types have a strong intellectual center, but weaker emotional and movement centers. I think a realignment is possible with practice. It takes time, and as one grows older, the centers begin to integrate better.