Yeah, that was my initial reaction as well.
Modern technologies are getting increasingly complicated… but when you get down to it, a car is just a box with wheels and a combustion engine. There aren’t that many ways for a outcome-perception-driven AI to go “oops, I accidentally concealed a human-killing machine gun inside the steering wheel!”, especially if the AI has to subcontract to independent suppliers for parts.
It could be fun to introduce some of these to novices and make it part of the language A classroom slang—a kind of introduction to thinking in language B.
There’s a kind of slang that’s like what you describe in r/france, where people will intentionally use idiomatic english expressions translated word-for-word in frech in non-sensical ways.
Eg people will say “je suis hors de la boucle” (I’m out of the loop) even though that sounds incomprehensible to someone who doesn’t know the english idiom.
Some people get really annoyed about that pseudo-slang, though.
I’m really not convinced by this review, the excerpts linked from the books, on the theory-crafting in the comment section.
I’m reading a lot of just-so stories, but not a lot of evidence, and the evidence there is seems like exactly the kind of papers that would fall prey to the replication crisis.
What is more annoying is when the people involved do not seem to appreciate the burned value as a bad thing and instead “romanticize” it
I think people on this forum all share some variation of the same experience, where they observe that everyone around them is used to do something inefficient, get told by their peers “no, don’t do the efficient thing, people will think less of you”, they do the efficient thing, and their life gets straightforwardly easier and nobody notices or care.
This is especially the case for social norms, when you can get your social circle to buy in. Eg people have really silly ideas about romance and gender roles and patriarchal ideals (eg the girl has to shave and put on makeup, the guy has to pay everything, everyone must be coy and never communicate), but if you and the person you date agree to communicate openly and respect each other and don’t do that crap… well, in my limited experience, it’s just easier and more fun?
My point is, it’s amazing how much value you can not-burn when your stop romanticizing burning value.
Yup, I came here to say this.
These days I’m often talking with Duncan Sabien, and sometimes I complain about my problems.
When I do, I almost never expect Duncan to give me solutions (though he sometimes does, because he’s a smart person and a good listener). I mostly do it to vent, and to put some words on ideas and grievances I’ve been stewing on for a while.
I’m going to be a little elitist and say this: the smarter people are, the less you can help them by giving them advice. If people aren’t self-actualized, and don’t have the skill to think through their problems, then, sure, you can listen to them for a while and give them a totally different approach or a new trick that they didn’t think of. But there’s also a category of people who, by the time they come to you to vent about their problems, have already put enough thought into them that they’ll have considered anything you can think of after a 5-minutes conversation.
(though of course you might have domain-specific knowledge or they might have overlooked something obvious or they might need support to not pick the easy-but-wrong choice, etc)
To paraphrase Scott Alexander, we should cultivate the skill of appreciating the phatic. Obviously everything in the article is valid and insightful and being curious is absolutely a skill to cultivate, especially in rational communities. But being phatic is a good default.