I think Terry Tao is a great litmus test for AI zealotry (both pro- and anti-). Just in this thread, we have people twisting themselves into knots about how he "sold out" or "not doing math the right way" or whatever. To him, AI is a tool, like any other.
From the interviews I've seen with Tao, he's not some AGI maniac, he says things like here's where we can use this tool, here's where it's less likely to be useful. There's a lot of hallucinations, so we need to double check stuff. Most of the stuff the AI produces is nonsense, but there's occasionally a diamond in the rough.
A very tempered attitude, and likely what most sane people are experiencing when using AI.
I enjoyed the article. I'm not a mathematician, but I did notice one aspect: even with his enthusiasm for AI, Tao effectively showed that for the uses he describes, AI can currently only handle small chunks of a mathematical problem at a time. Humans, or non-LLM approaches are still needed to stitch these together.
It perhaps isn't too different from LLMs being able to coherently output short, a few hundred words, pieces of prose, or code, but not being able to assemble them into functional output with constant "nudging".
A smart phone was just a tool at first, but over time society has become overly depedent on them. Most of us are now addicted to our smart phones in one way or another, and that has consequences that play out across society as a whole.
AI not only provides potential to cause society to become overly dependent on it, but it's being developed by/pushed for by the same fucking people who caused our societies smartphone addiction.
Once you recognize what we've lost already, it's hard to turn off your brain and just compartmentalize this away as a "just a tool". Nothing that is adopted so widely is "just a tool," and thinking of it in those terms eliminates the ability to analyze the potential downstream effects it will cause.
> pushed for by the same fucking people who caused our societies smartphone addiction
Not sure where you live, but I would guess the West (where we have the luxury to be worried about "smartphone addiction"). I assure you that the net positive of smartphones, especially cheap Androids, have had a significantly more positive effect on society than negative, particularly in the developing world.
As a person from the developing world I feel obligated to say that I find your assurance quite unconvincing: the negative effects of smartphone at this point in time is invariant globally, and whether they are a net positive or negative is at least debatable.
And in relation to your first comment, most sane people would agree that "tools" don't exist in isolation - neither come into existence out of nowhere.
This reductionist position of treating extremely complex machines with deep social interactions as a tool like any other is objectively wrong, and I believe the reasons are highly obvious but I can expand on this if you disagree.
That's an extremely broad statement to make "assuredly". I'd wager you haven't figured environmental consequences into your calculation. All the toxic waste from production is being routed to the developing world.
>But I assure you that the net positive of smartphones, especially cheap Androids, have had a significantly more positive effect on society than negative, particularly in the developing world.
My point is that the tool which was meant to augment one particular aspect of life, has metastasized into being a cancer on many other aspects of our lives, and that has downstream consequences on society as a whole.
Keeping this in mind, being a bullish on AI seems foolish.
edit: Perhaps a better thesis for my reservations with rapid technological progress: smart phones were supposed to help us adjust to society, but society instead adjusted to them. AI is positioned to do the same, and we need to ask ourselves what those changes could look like, and if they're for the better, or for the worse.
>where we have the luxury to be worried about "smartphone addiction"
I reject this, and any similar framing that amounts to "because there are other, greater problems at play, worrying about this relatively lesser problem is worthless."
A problem that impacts people is a problem that deserves attention, especially if an absolute terms the number of people impacted are in the tens/hundreds of millions.
Social constructivism is tougher and tougher than “just tools.” Could the so-called “addictiveness” consist partly of the many other devices smartphones replaced? Sure, some attention economy but also just turn off the data?
> My point is that the tool which was meant to augment one particular aspect of life, has metastasized into being a cancer on many other aspects of our lives, and that has downstream consequences on society as a whole.
This is true of all important tools in history. From computers, to electricity, cars, steam, even agriculture. They reshape society and its practices. This has been documented multiple times. One I can remember on top of my head, but is not limited to, is historical materialism.
From an misesian perspective, this seems fairly obvious:
1. smartphones are extremely useful (being miniature computers and all);
2. people tend to optimize their actions with the best tools available (i.e. smartphones in this case);
3. people will see others using smartphone increasing and will try to leverage that for their own goals, thus further adopting smartphones (even if indirectly);
4. the economy is the sum of human action, so this progressive adoption changes the economy and the culture.
> A problem that impacts people is a problem that deserves attention, especially if an absolute terms the number of people impacted are in the tens/hundreds of millions.
The real issue with your post is that you seem to be trying to fix smartphones addiction by getting rid of phones, ignoring the benefits they brought and the previous problems they fixed.
> 1. smartphones are extremely useful (being miniature computers and all);
Whether they are extremely useful or just some tool that has its uses depends a lot on your lifestyle.
> 2. people tend to optimize their actions with the best tools available (i.e. smartphones in this case);
What "best (tools)" means for you, depends a lot on your values. For example, if you value privacy, mobile phones and in particular smartphones are incredibly bad tool choices.
> Whether they are extremely useful or just some tool that has its uses depends a lot on your lifestyle.
The "useful" then didn't refer to the individual value judgments of all individuals, but the presence of material affordances that a sufficiently big mass of people would find useful. I admit this was not the best wording, but I forgot (and can't find it right now) the formal term that encapsulates the material qualities that others may see usefulness.
> What "best (tools)" means for you, depends a lot on your values. For example, if you value privacy, mobile phones and in particular smartphones are incredibly bad tool choices.
Agreed, but this misses the point. I didn't mean to imply that the value of things are objective (this is a misesian perspective, SToV is implied), but that some people would find smartphones useful, adopting themselves, and that would further expand the opportunities smartphones are useful to others, creating a positive feedback loop.
>The real issue with your post is that you seem to be trying to fix smartphones addiction by getting rid of phones, ignoring the benefits they brought and the previous problems they fixed.
No, my post is decidedly not that. I'm saying maybe we should stop and think about the consequences and plan accordingly.
My bad, then. If I may suggest something, give a small acknowledgement and avoid words such as "cancer", which is pretty loaded.
Still, people (as in most individuals in the economy) can't simply be stopped, even less so to plan, specially in a free system such as enjoyed by most of the west. That requires a high degree of coordination and coersion that I think only Cuba and NK are currently capable of, slightly. Otherwise, people will just do their own thing, leading to a technological revolution again, given the material means.
A more practical approach is to continuously nudge the direction of change towards a better direction, constantly reevaluating approach, but avoiding having to stop everyone else.
I'm not the person you were responding to, but I could've written the same as they did, so here's my reply:
I don't dispute that in aggregate the effect was positive. But I spend more time thinking about things which impact me directly, and I assure you that in my personal life it used to be a problem, and fixing it was an improvement.
Calling my position stoic is kind of goofy imo (and fwiw, I personally find AI to be a pretty useful tool), but I'm not going to reply to some drive-by account literally made just to troll me.
Both the Leiden Declaration[1] as well as Commelin et al.'s announcement (Shaping the Future of Mathematics in the Age of AI)[2] are completely common-sense pieces, neither overstating the power of AI nor understating the capability of these tools to be misused (most acutely when it comes to attribution).
I do think that ethically, OpenAI and Anthropic, by training their models on the entire corpus of human knowledge, have certainly broken some rules, but these rules were already broken decades ago by Google—unless we really want to start splitting hairs about if indexing + processing is different than training, which is imo a distinction without a difference—, so it's hard to see who to exactly blame. In any case, that cat is out of the bag. (And for the record, I'm technically a stakeholder: I'm part of like two class actions because of a few books I wrote.) But that's neither here nor there.
> I think Terry Tao is a great litmus test for AI zealotry (both pro- and anti-). Just in this thread, we have people twisting themselves into knots about how he "sold out" or "not doing math the right way" or whatever. To him, AI is a tool, like any other.
We've been flooded with "AGI is 6 months away!" for a few years now, mostly by Anthropic/OAI/XAI, which is clearly nonsensical hype. Also, almost everyone has been walking back their previous claims that "AI will replace ~80% of white-collar jobs."
> Also, almost everyone has been walking back their previous claims that "AI will replace ~80% of white-collar jobs."
They started walking those claims back right around the time someone tried to set Sam Altman's house on fire.
Not making those claims anymore doesn't necessarily mean they don't still believe those claims, it is very possible they just realized saying the quiet part out loud was a bad look for them even if it was/is what they believed to be true.
In the last decade or so I have never seen so much layoffs across the industry. This may be suggesting that evidence supporting the latter hypothesis is not maybe too far fetched.
In the last decade, the software engineering industry has turned into a grift that has pushed out hundreds of thousand of low-quality "engineers" through coding bootcamps or online courses. Many of these people have no passion for the craft or interest in building products.
Then, when money was cheap during COVID, companies over-hired unscrupulously. Now, given that markets are cooling off and there's some political, geopolitical, and economic uncertainty, companies are hedging their bets, and laying off is usually the right move, especially as interest rates are going back up.
There are perfectly viable explanations for the situation the industry finds itself in without invoking the AI boogeyman, especially considering that just about every study out there shows that AI use correlates with a fairly modest increase in productivity, and that it won't turn anyone into a "10x engineer" overnight.
Over-hiring could be one way of explaining the effect we are seeing, however, where are those "coding bootcamp" or "online courses" engineers? I honestly ask because I have never worked with one in almost 2 decades of being in the industry, and I worked across many different domains. What I see is on the contrary - the people who are getting laid off are people with legit engineering degrees from legit engineering Universities.
Also, over-hiring by the very definition implies a sudden surplus of engineers on the market. I can't quite understand where did these engineers all of the sudden come from? The number of engineers outputted by the Universities YoY is pretty much close to O(1) so I am not convinced to this theory at all and I see it only as a good excuse that companies are making in order to make them look better.
I spoke with my friends few days ago, and one of them runs the company so he asked me on the opinion of the AI frenzy. I gave him my view and by the end of it he told me that he feels uneasy but that he has to let go part of his employees because he simply does not need them anymore - they are literally replaced by the AI model and one or two or N-M engineers operating the model. Yesterday he needed 10 people for the job, today it is 2 or 3 people.
So, I think that the AI has already changed the landscape dramatically, and what we are seeing are not the post-COVID effects.
Where I'm from and peripheral countries, the industry is riddled with bootcampers and button pushers. My company even has a big bootcamp for reconversions
What are you trying to suggest? That people without the University degree who have been trained for monkey coding do exist? Sure but that's not what I was saying nor does it skew the picture in any significant way.
What I'm trying to convey and you fail to understand is the picture you have in your mind is very much affected by your reality. The fact that you don't see these bootcampers doesn't mean they don't exist.
If "the latter hypothesis" of parent commenter was that "AI will replace ~80% of white-collar jobs", then that hypothesis clearly not supported by the current layoffs. AI isn't replacing workers, AI just happens to be an easy excuse for it. Could as well have been "COVID" or "tariffs" or "the economy" or "the end of Zero interest-rate policy"
Why not? I have literally got several first hand examples where people are fired because of how good the AI models became. Why do you find that questionable?
Objective reality is that many people have lost and are still loosing their jobs. If you don't have anything useful to add to your response please refrain from polluting the discussion.
No, it is not the same at all. I intentionally frame my words by saying that after all there may be an indication that such an event or correlation exists but I am explicitly not stating anything, therefore it is rather an invitation for discussion and not one-sided talk.
Super cool. Working on a local AI tool specifically for document workflow automation (where context = screen/web/folders/files), and this could come in super useful. I do most of the PDF/DOCX/etc. parsing natively in Rust, but having a nice way to see the output without spinning up Word or Powerpoint is a huge leap.
Using lopdf[1] for PDF parsing, rtf-parser[2] for RTF, calamine[3] for XLSX, and I'm sure you know that DOCX/PPTX/etc. is basically just a zip file of XML + text. The LLM cares about textual data (which just gets moderately cleaned up post-extraction), so I (thankfully) didn't have to deal with rendering. But showing a preview or end-result to a user would be a huge plus, so I can see myself using your library.
> Even at non VC subsidized $/token prices, its still much cheaper to run cloud based models.
On a price-per-wattage level, this is not true, people have done the math on /r/LocalLLaMA many times over[1]. Local models, while not as good as premier models (GPT 5.5, etc.), are like ~80%+ of the way there, and often converge to a similar solution after a few dead ends.
Maybe not per watt, but unless you already happen to own a 3900 cited by that post, you'd have to buy that as well, which is currently selling for around $1400 used.
3090s are running $1400 now? Wowsers. I thought I was overspending when I bought 6x of them for around $800 a pop.
Might be time to sell, to be honest. It's fun to have that at home, but I can't justify having $10k (with memory, mobo, cpu, etc) sitting in my basement without being fully utilized.
I do have a 3090 Ti on my gaming PC, but even my old M1 MBP (with a mere 32gb of RAM) is quite competent and can run a quantized `Gemma4-26B-A4B` in the background while I do other stuff.
Where you are developing software. Its significantly faster to use google gemini and copy paste code back and forth compared to having gemini edit files for you.
AI future is clearly local, and my recent pitch has been "infinite tokens." Because that's what my M1 MBP can do; and that's what my RTX3090 can do. I don't need to pay hundreds of dollars a month and no one else does either.
In the 80s we thought that the future of computing was clearly local, home computers, PCs, Macs, the office server (Novell, then Windows NT with disk shares) etc. Add 40 years and we are back to a centralized infrastructure with the modern equivalent of smart terminals.
The AI future will be clearly... what it will be. Probably bouncing back and forth from local to centralized. However, if there are money to be made by selling things that people run locally, it seems that centralizing creates more power and hence more money.
the real money is in the coding surrounding models to make them efficient at specialized tasks. Casual users want general purpose models, and AI chat apps will stay for them. Most programs can benefit from a specialized AI that can be local, and #programs >> #users.
> And yet, somehow, the more years go by, the more rarely I watch snowboarding videos.
I'd argue that snowboarding wasn't author's "dream" to begin with. I think it's reductive and unfair to compare your "oh it would be cool to do that" with someone else's actual dream: as in, a passion they pour their life and soul into. Being great at anything takes much more than a passing "it would be neat to be able to do X."
And achieving a dream (say, competing at the Olympics) is a lot less glamorous than a casual tourist might imagine.
I somewhat agree, but I think a person's "passion" is more concrete than their "dream". A dream is not necessarily something being actively progressed.
Athletes, artists, entrepreneurs say "this has been my dream" all the time when achieving something superlative. But you qualified with "necessarily" so I guess technically you're correct, but it would be kinda' weird if someone told me that "X is their dream" and never did anything about it, especially if it's relatively achievable (i.e. not "going to Mars" or something).
Getting decent at snowboarding isn't some crazy goal (and you need to be decent before you're good, or great). I started skiing late in life and I try to go a few times a season to keep up with it. I'm by no means good, but slowly getting better.
Why would it be weird? My grandmother dreamed of being a school teacher, never did it, and talked about it until she died. The closest she ever got was teaching Sunday School for a few months.
It's common to have a dream and do nothing concrete about it. That's part of why we call it a dream. Sometimes it's less about the thing itself and more about the unfulfilled and unrealistic expectation.
About your second point, the site guidelines suggest assuming good faith and responding to the strongest possible version of what someone has written. I would interpret that to mean here that "they had no trouble understanding the post but had reservations about it, which felt important to them".
I will also add that I feel characterizing what they have written as nitpicking feels rude and uncharitable.
Personally I appreciated the parent comment because although I enjoyed the article, it didn't completely sit well with me, and the comment helped to clarify why. There are some activities in my life that I've poured years of blood, sweat, and tears into, and I'm realizing as I get older that my goals and dreams with regard to this category of work will probably never be realized. This feels a bit different to the snowboarding narrative, which for all I know may have been chosen not because the writer hasn't been in a situation like mine, but because it's easier to digest and doesn't require a level of vulnerability that would muddy the light-hearted tone of the post.
In any event, I don't feel your hostility is fair or warranted here
My interpretation of the article was the the author really was really into sbowboarding. But 15 years ago. Where now they talk about it with an amount of distance that it really isn't their dream anymore. Because it can't be.
From the article: "I’ll probably never be a snowboarder at all [...] I’d love to take snowboarding lessons." It doesn't seem like he even snowboarded a day in his life.
Calling liminalism the "defining" aesthetic of our time is a bit much (though I get the article is trying to hitch its wagon to the Backrooms, aka the "current popular thing"). It's an aesthetic microniche, about as popular as vaporwave, or cyberpunk, grunge, or Y2K (think flip phones, bulky plastic cameras, etc.). There's a ton of these, and some are surprising: for example, there's even been a relatively recent revival of the "old-money" aesthetic, especially motivated by fashion brands like Rowing Blazers, etc.
Also, for places metro stations/gyms it's more of a maintenance and hygiene thing rather than an aesthetic. I'm currently in Paris so I've seen a ton of metro stations recently and really, unless you arrived in the dead of night so that you could snap an empty photo like the one in the article, there's nothing much liminal about them. A space can't be liminal if it's packed with people, buskers, beggars, dogs, etc. In that case, what it is is minimal or functional.
Indeed, I've been in airports where I had to go down a long and eerily empty hallway, and I assumed it was just a design work-around due to needing to get a tiny number of people from A to B without breaking the security and safety perimeter. Without that security need, e.g., in a regular city, that hallway would be replaced with walking a block or two outdoors.
> I'm currently in Paris so I've seen a ton of metro stations recently and really, unless you arrived in the dead of night so that you could snap an empty photo like the one in the article, there's nothing much liminal about them.
Liminal does not mean minimal. It means in-between, neither here nor there but in the interstices, transitional.
Dictionary.app in macOS Sequoia defines (with example usage) "liminal" as
> 1 occupying a position at, or on both sides of, a boundary or threshold: I was in the liminal space between past and present | the paintings in this exhibition are the result of recent investigation into liminal states.
> 2 relating to a transitional or initial stage of a process: that liminal period when a child is old enough to begin following basic rules but is still too young to do so consistently.
By definition, metro stations are liminal spaces, as are airports, airlocks, highways, and most every transit station.
"Language as she is spoke" is very often at odds with literal dictionary definitions. So you're right that a liminal space is a transitional space, and that a metro is by definition that. But linimal aesthetic is different, especially as has recently become popular. It means a space that gives you that feeling of being between, of emptiness, introspection. A metro station absolutely does not have this aesthetic, except maybe at some mysterious hour where there's no one using it (and I've used them at both closing and opening times, they're never empty).
> But linimal aesthetic is different, especially as has recently become popular.
Your articulation of a liminal aesthetic hits upon the tension inherit in the word “liminal”.
By definition “liminal” signals “in between” which connotes an unsettledness or indeterminacy, or what in other realms is called the uncanny. This liminal aesthetic, at its core, is shot through with a sense of the uncanny, and empty devoid spaces where normally there is a lot of traffic convey this aesthetic clearly and succinctly.
Thank you for drawing this distinction.
My intent when referring to the denotation of “liminal” was to remind that even familiar places, such as bustling train stations and busy airport terminals, are also liminal spaces even if they don’t conform to current representations of the liminal _aesthetic_. By preserving the denotation of the word “liminal”, we can defamiliarize such spaces and recover (or emphasize) their liminality.
All of which is the message of art like Brian Eno’s “Music for Airports”. Who doesn’t appreciate the defamiliarization of our “mundane” traversals of the realms we inhabit?
I think even the busiest airport terminal does retain a liminal feel, because the entire time you spend in it you are being palpably funneled along, with enough attendant unpleasantness to keep you in a state of constantly waiting to get a move on. in train terminals you are a lot more self motivated.
Good luck preserving the meaning of words. Words have no meaning outside how people use them to express ideas. Words can and do change to mean different things, or even 'literally' the opposite of themselves.
The very usage you bring up is a whimsical metaphorical one: "I was in the liminal space between past and present". We are all in this liminal space because we are all trapped between the past and the present.
Like many things throughout history, I strongly suspect it means whatever the author means.
But the abandonment of a place which should be filled with life is a huge aspect of the liminal art movement. It speaks to the hollowing out of public life in north america and britain.
Is the abandonment of places that should be filled with life a defining aspect of today? Which places? Malls & COVID? I guess they exist but are they especially prevalent today?
Unless all those people are transfixed into their own isolated, smartphone-mediated experience, as they are likely to be these days, then it's arguably "liminal" again. I.e. a lonely, deserted and uncanny place.
A Nina Simone song comes to mind: everyone's gone... to the moon...
The same art world (or more specifically the "Consumer Aesthetics Research Institute") also named "Frutiger Aero" the defining aesthetic of 2000s, even though it was really only seen in a few places (Aqua aesthetic is very different from Aero). All of this should probably be taken with grains of salt.
Is CARI part of the ”art world”? Where have CARI said that Frutiger Aero was ”the defining” aesthetic of 2000s? They are working to identify many different aesthetic trends that existed in parallel, not one that defines each decade.
Their description of Frutiger Aero explicitly includes Aqua, both mentioned by name and included visually:
In fact, when you see someone in the art world claiming that X is a "defining" anything, it usually means that they have a big collection of X for sale.
In this case, I imagine it's submarine marketing for the movie that's out.
hacker news is, though. I'd be interested to see if the same article has been posted to two dozen subreddits etc (though not so interested as to actually do anything about it lol)
I never got why Frutiger Aero got so popular as a ‘nostalgic’ aesthetic, when it’s basically the Windows Vista, GNOME 3 (the awful rewrite of GNOME 2), KDE 4.0 (the buggy, emo black rewrite of KDE 3) look?
It was the lowest point of computer graphics. Who the hell is nostalgic for that? Probably just kids that had their formative years in those ~2-3 years. Not sure you can even call it a niche.
I’m a fan on the vaporwave/Windows 2000/XP aesthetic, the Vista era is when everything started going to shit.
Its fascinating to me. I grew up in the UK home computer scene of the mid 80s-early 90s. After this, the Frutiger Aero aesthetic seemed to me redolent of the total corporatization of what previously seemed a much more human and approachable computer world. Now everything was behind glass, impossibly polished by unfathomable, expensive machines. I found it totally alienating.
Same, I hated when everything transitioned to it and became harder to read as a result. Frutiger Aero was a sterile sort of cheerful in a way only a CEO could think was relatable. It basically marked the turning point where the UI stopped being something janky that felt human made, into a mass produced corporate template.
Looking at it felt like the visual equivalent of licking soap.
Every time I see it now, I can only think “good riddance”.
I thought similarly, but the article actually was published prior to Backrooms movie release and popularity, though there is a nod they were aware the concept was being optioned to A24. Though I agree, “defining” might be a bit strong.
Literally working on a product that does this, hah :) I really do think that AI + automation + carefully-designed guardrails will unleash a deluge of productivity for normies, and we've barely scratched the surface.
The state of AI apps is absolutely trash right now, it’s embarrassing that these companies that raised millions are releasing the shittiest slop around without any product ethos. Obviously we're seeing what sticks, but come on guys.
I'm using Brett Cannon's `https://github.com/brettcannon/cpython-wasi-build` running inside a WASI rust container with a carefully-designed host SDK (e.g. sandboxed Chromium access, diff, sandboxed filesystem, pandas subset, PDF reading, etc.). Essentially the AI sees a goal, a plan, and essentially treats the "task space" as a WASI-powered Python notebook.
Mainly focused on the user experience, and I think that local LLMs (secure/private) + standard Python + host functions + (some external stuff like screen reading & quarantined web access) is more than enough for 90% of actionable tasks.
It's always the most insufferable people that make the biggest hullabaloo about a project they have nothing to do with and have never contributed to. People with literally zero skin in the game using the AI boogeyman to push some agenda or some anti-agenda. OSS has become so incredibly toxic in the past decade, and consumers of OSS have become extremely entitled.
I run a smallish project with ~1k stars and I've stopped maintaining it last year because people feel like they're absolutely owed features or bug-fixes or whatever. It's tiring and a complete shame that author has to make such an insane deep dive into a random accusation that just caught on social media. I want to emphasize that this has nothing to do with AI, it's just tech tourists, consumers (as opposed to creators), and engagement farmers that have taken over. AI slop probably doesn't help, but the underlying issue has been brewing for at least a decade.
Also, the "making soup for the homeless & pissing in it" is not only an off-base analogy (software is pretty low on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs), but also somehow looks down on both people in need and the volunteers that help them. Just absolutely gross.
Absolutely agree. Quite a lot of judgement from people who benefited from this guy's software for over 20 years, probably without ever helping him pay his bills even once.
> It's always the most insufferable people that make the biggest hullabaloo about a project they have nothing to do with and have never contributed to.
Agreed, and similarly, as a hobbyist programmer who loves Rust and Go, I've always felt that the people who command others to "rewrite it in xyz" are not themselves developers, they're "ideas people." There's a mass of these people whose main interactions with the world are through the dramatic forcing of their correct opinions.
> I run a smallish project with ~1k stars and I've stopped maintaining it last year because people feel like they're absolutely owed features or bug-fixes or whatever.
That's a bummer and it's something I'm fearful of. I post some code on my website, not on a github type site, and don't interact with people about it. It's nice and plenty of people do it. Is that something you'd consider?
I'm not a psychologist or a mental health professional, but I think that this might serve a similar purpose as journaling. It's obvious that AI can't "fix your problems," but just writing stuff down can help us process.
I was going though a problem I'm having parents - they are aging, decisions need to be made, that sort of stuff. Writing it out, thinking about it, reflecting further - I probably spent at least and hour just typing in my thoughts as they came to me and honestly I often didn't read the AI responses.
All of that got me to realize that the problem wasn't that I wasn't explaining myself well. I kept thinking that if I'd just found the right words they'd change their minds. The process of digging into not just where they are now but who they've always been, how they've always been. I need to accept that and move forward.
agree. This cant do as much as genuine therapy (which requires another person, no way around it). But it is helpful in some ways. It helped me talk through something last week and it genuinely enriched my life in that way.
Therapy keeps people alive that wouldn't otherwise be, and people coping that wouldn't otherwise be able to.
I've noticed that the human tolerance for extreme suffering leads sometimes to binary thinking. "Well they're still going to work even though they're made to piss in bottles, they must be fine with it!" Human experience is a wide array of emotions and states, I don't think we should try to separate into "cured/healthy" and "unhealthy/requiring adjustment by a mental health professional." Improving quality of life is also good.
Pretty gross comment. Just say you're cool and awesome cause you don't care about people. Virtue signal and move on, why make try to make a fake discussion?
You aren't sincere, though, since you followed it up with a clearly uninformed assumption: "Not by the numbers. tons enrolled, none cured." That you're uninformed is obvious: there's myriad papers demonstrating the efficacy of psychotherapy in treating all manner of diseases, furthermore, to say "cured" means you have a fundamentally uninformed understanding of medicine. Nobody that's spent any reasonable amount of time learning about medicine would so flippantly say something vague like "cured." How do you "cure" a limb with peripheral arterial disease? Well, you treat the patient by amputating the limb. Boom, they've been "cured" of PAD! You see, it's absurd.
Based on your site, you seem like a pretty smart guy, in engineering. Maybe when it comes to confidently dismissing entire swaths of knowledge, you should stick to your own field, rather than "sincerely" doubting an entire branch of medicine without even a single paper linked to support your position.
many disorders have cures. “Therapy” is unique in that the cure is more therapy and drugs. Therapy isn’t medicine. It isn’t an empirical practice. A board makes up subjective disorders, practitioners subjectively qualify patients and ply them with drugs. No relation to medicine.
Ah! Then it should be trivially easy for you to write up a paper disproving the various supportive studies for therapeutic treatments and their efficacy.
We all get you have this strongman opinion about mental health, what I'm telling you is that your objection is roughly as convincing as a flat earther pointing at great circle lines and saying "see, makes no sense!"
You're also simply wrong about psychotherapy being unique in that it's the only ongoing treatment. Not only does it for many people reduce to yearly check-ins or less once they have the tools to manage whatever they're managing, there's other diseases that are treated with various therapies (physical, for example) until death: ALS, for example.
They very word, "therapy," just means "treatment."
round earth has empirical diagnostics that anyone can perform, even laymen, to prove it to themselves.
The mental illness model is just a book of definitions, made up by a board. there are no objective diagnostics in the book. Even claims about endocrine disfunction have no practical clinical measurement. It's not based on any empirical research , it's based entirely on subjective judgements. Every new version of the book has new "disorders" that are entirely made up .
Don't play dumb with words. words have connotations. It's obvious we are talking about talk therapy, psychotherapy more broadly, psychotropics and the popular trends around that connotation of "therapy".
The entire psychiatric / psychotherapy industry believes in that book like a bible. No amount of opposing evidence will change their mind , because they've fabricated a supernatural domain. There's no way to disprove a religion.
You've constructed a strawman of the field of psychiatry and are arguing against it. I assume you mean the DSM5? It's basically a dictionary. Is the entirety of the English language and all things that happen in it represented by the Oxford English Dictionary? Read it and you've already read Shakespeare AND Google's transformers white paper!
You're ignoring mountains of studies with empirical evidence for the efficacy of various psychiatric treatments.
You think you're being empirical because you can't find a chain between a molecular chemical reaction and a given psychiatric disorder and its treatment, like the link between what a bacterial infection does to the body and then what the antibiotics do to the bacteria. I encounter this a lot in engineers, who are used to working in relatively simple, deterministic systems. If you want to blow your mind, go look up the data storage capacity of the DNA in a skin cell. Have trouble parsing a vibe coded PR, try parsing the human genome.
You're mistaken that what you perceive as subjective is related only to the field of psychiatry. The human body is too complicated to model accurately, so for example nutrition is also a highly "subjective" field leaning heavily on empirical data gleaned through studies, rather than a deterministic perfect link between the mechanisms of a tummy ache and the chemical composition of the food that might be causing it (actually it might be the food triggering a reaction in the gut bacteria which is... OR it could be psychosomatic OR it could be unrelated to nutrition at all and be ...)
If you need determinism and full system explanations to understand things, that's great, you chose the right field: computer science is easy to map. Down to the last bit, down to the logic gates in the CPU, you can describe everything, you can determine the exact cause of a bug or behavior. Biology and medicine aren't like that, especially not psychiatry. The human brain is widely considered the most complicated thing in the universe (that we're aware of). It can't be modeled or simulated with the degree of accuracy of a CPU. It's nondeterministic and unpredictable. The best we can do is do large aggregate studies and start picking apart the patterns and labeling them. It's definitely still an early science but that doesn't invalidate the treatments which studies show do work.
It's definitely weird the "power" of the human brain on human biology, but the evidence is overwhelming. Studies on psychosomatic symptoms, studies on placebo, studies on therapy treatments, if the effects weren't real, they wouldn't show up so consistently in populations across the world.
So again, I get it, you don't fully comprehend the field so you dismiss it. However I again remind you: your dismissals aren't convincing, they just expose your ignorance of this topic. Go on believing whatever you want, but I guess I'd recommend keeping this confident ignorance to yourself.
What I suspect is you specifically believe some subset of psychological disorders are "fake," am I right? If I had to guess, for people with your opinion, it's usually, depression, ADHD, maybe autism, and maybe gender dysphoria? Lots of other disorders listed. Surely you don't think schizophrenia is fake? Tourettes? PTSD? If you're gonna say the whole book is fake you have a lot of studies you need to dismantle.
Certainly I do. The subject is if AI can be better than therapy. My position is : yes, because therapy (as commonly practiced) is terrible, so the bar is low. Also , AI can be a great therapy (in the real sense)
Worked great for me. Big recommend. "Cured" is mostly an unspecifiable state, and while certainly there's lots still wrong with me, I am healed far beyond my expectations at the outset, so increment your count by one.
Is a person with a crutch healed? No. But they can walk, when before they could not. Therapy can't erase the past, but it can give people tools to live more capable and rich lives. A crutch doesn't regrow an amputated leg, but it does help that person handle the injury, so in that sense, it 'works'.
With most therapy the goal isn't to cure, but to manage and help cope in a healthy way. There are also plenty of mental illnesses or disorders that have no cure, and a few that are in the DSM because they cause problems with how our society is structured, not necessarily because its a true disorder (its only disorder because it causes issues functioning within societal systems).
I think it's neither made up, nor actual health care.
It's basically a replacement for having cultural and social guard rails, lots of community, lots of straightforward expectations of roles etc. Today, people are atomized and lost, so they need a friend-and-priest-replacement who has authority but also patience to hear you out and has experience with judgement calls about people's lives.
But all this talk about "healthy" ways of coping etc is basically just there for medicine-envy and insurance reasons.
I think having one's mind/spirit sorted out is quite important, but the specific textbook strategies of today may be indeed mostly hogwash through a strict healthcare lens.
much therapy is basically what youre saying, but the real deal is not, and is a more genuine healing experience that can only be facilitated by an expert
From the interviews I've seen with Tao, he's not some AGI maniac, he says things like here's where we can use this tool, here's where it's less likely to be useful. There's a lot of hallucinations, so we need to double check stuff. Most of the stuff the AI produces is nonsense, but there's occasionally a diamond in the rough.
A very tempered attitude, and likely what most sane people are experiencing when using AI.
reply