Sal Paradise

Karma: 0

Sal Paradise 29 Mar 2026 20:27 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: The Problem with Asking your Doctor
The nutritional supplements industry does have those millions necessary for clinical trials. A peer-reviewed clinical study is likely to further boost their sales. We don’t know exactly why there hasn’t been another study commissioned. One likely explanation to me seems to be that there is low confidence in achieving results that prove the suggested “extremely huge” impact, and an inherent risk of being reduced to the efficiency level of chicken soup.
There is a case to be made to amend the DSHEA of 1994 (or equivalent legislation in the EU) to enforce more clinical studies for nutritional supplements, which would close this gap in verified knowledge.

Sal Paradise 29 Mar 2026 5:54 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: The Problem with Asking your Doctor
Let me start by saying my question was genuine. 30 year old research in medicine triggers scepticism in me.
“Yes, that says quite bad things about the medical community that they are only focused on things that can be patented to make money. It’s another reason to be distrustful of doctors.”
Sorry, I don’t subscribe to this. “The medical community” is vastly diverse and merit is not only gained through patentable research.
Which is proven by the point there actually has been ongoing research into the effect of chicken soup on influenza as well as the effect of supplements. The latest study I could find was a 2025 meta-study. One of the underlying studies supports the claim of a 1-2.5 reduction. All support “modest benefits”. All in all I would say the result is not as “extremely huge” as you portray but I do agree further research is warranted to verify and explore the exact mechanisms at play.

Sal Paradise 28 Mar 2026 21:20 UTC
0 points
0
in reply to: Florin’s comment on: The Problem with Asking your Doctor
I agree with your premise but would expect any decent doctor to actually enter a serious discussion with you to find the best med when you say one doesn’t work for you. You are proving from your own experience, and the vast variability in reactions is something well documented in the medical field.

You should not need to bring studies for this and not have to prove via academia. I will maintain that bringing print-outs shifts the interaction from patient-doctor to adversarial peer-review. Many doctors will dig in, not concede.

Sal Paradise 28 Mar 2026 19:12 UTC
−1 points
0
on: The Problem with Asking your Doctor
No, you should not fault them for any of it. If you are healthy and not taking regular medicine, the initial assumption — that you have to talk to your doctor about supplements — is wrong.
Yes, doctors should follow up on current research but also prioritize what is most relevant. How to have a slight effect on common infections and influenza is definitely not top of mind. Cross-medication effects for the elderly are just one example of much more relevant research to stay on top of, amid a myriad of topics.
You are definitely not supposed to have papers printed out for them. You might refer to a study you read, yes, but bringing print-outs is over the top even if you are a colleague of some sort. If you feel confident in a chatbot’s advice for something not remotely life-threatening — go ahead! And during your next regular visit inform your doctor of your decisions and any supplements you take (just as you would with OTC medicine) — but don’t expect a professional discussion. Also: doctors have the same range as any other profession, so the chance of having a mediocre one follows the bell curve.
Sidenote: your cited study is rather old. Has there been no new research since 1997? This would indicate it is not something the medical community feels is worth following up on.

Sal Paradise 28 Mar 2026 2:28 UTC
1 point
0
on: Planning 80000 hours at the Plausible End of the World
I am not in AI, but I work with highly analytical people in different career stages.
I enjoyed your approach and calculating the possible trajectories. However I feel the human aspect falls too short. While “I can probably learn anything” might be true (within bounds), it is a trap. The people I have observed who were truly memorable and had impact all had an intrinsic pull towards their field—not a strategized, optimized fit. And I am not talking generally within a field but also within the sub-specializations. While you argue against the emphasis on “personal fit” I would argue it is not just meant in terms of suiting a career but also in terms of personal satisfaction and reduction of friction for learning and adaptaion. In a fast, high-stakes field, less friction and having things come to you naturally is mental hygiene, burn-out prevention and the sweet-spot where brilliance emerges.
Time lost is compensated by skill and interest. Sustained execution over years requires more than optimal strategy, it requires genuine engagement with the work itself.

Sal Paradise 23 Mar 2026 21:18 UTC
1 point
0
on: Vibecoders can’t build for longevity
I like the observation of additive coding behaviour.
I think you are not taking into account the different ways vibe coding is used in business practice:
It is used by established professionals who increase their efficiency—and they will be able to maintain the code also in the future, disregarding AI limitations.
It is used by small businesses and executives and potential entrepreneurs to quickly deploy on single issue items. One small piece of software for one particular task. It is just as likely a year from now it will get rewritten by newer coding agents rather than updated continuously.
Given the speed of development, any prediction about coding agent capabilities in 1-2 years is very hard to achieve with reasonable certainty. Two years ago, many developers did not believe in the increased quality and pervasiveness vibecoding has shown in 2026.
In my company (~30-40 employees), rather than subscribing to more SaaS we hired our first 1.5 coders (full- and part-time) in order to build software via vibecoding. Something we would not have invested in two years ago, because output and certainty about acceptable results were too risky and seem acceptable now.
Finally the current SaaS replacement theory. My reading is, it is commonly accepted there is a big gap in openness to implement vibe-coded software depending on
- niche (customized engineering software vs. general CRM)
- business size (enterprise much more slowly and hesitant to switch)
- legal / compliance risks (liability being able to be deferred to established 3rd party companies)
So yes, I agree with your thesis when it comes to complex software, even more so if it is enterprise-employed and covers liability. Vibecoding will probably not replace SAP in the coming years.
I also agree with being sceptical about vibe coding companies—not because of technological limitations though, but rather because vibecoding will fracture current software-company-style coding. Coding will be more prone to inhousing. SaaS has to be more than an efficiency upgrade. It either has to be pervasive (extremely high cost to switch due to integration in all systems) or—better—provide liability protection.

Sal Paradise 21 Mar 2026 23:41 UTC
3 points
1
on: China Derangement Syndrome
To pick up some repeating arguments.
Re Taiwan: I don’t think this serves as a counterargument. The remnants of the non-communist Kuomintang forces retreated to Taiwan as a last base. For mainland China to consider this a “left over territory to conquer which we didn’t complete in 1949” is historically and culturally more justifiable than what international foreign intervention usually means.
Re China’s internal despotism: China being not militaristically expansionist does not equal China being a humanistic society or desirable system of state or societal organization. However, being a controlling, despotic system with inward facing repression, also doesn’t falsify the introductory claim. Contrary to many other despotic states, China undoubtedly has the military capability to expand forcefully (and ironically probably enough indifference to human life to not care about the loss of armed personnel).
Re roads and belts initiative: I agree it is not just an infrastructure project. Quite the opposite: it is an effective mixture of soft- and hard-power (we develop your country without meddling in your internal affairs but we lock you into economic dependence on the way). It is however distinguishable from the way development aid by western countries has often played out for other countries’ elected governments.
All in all: China’s track record internally is much worse than western countries, judged against standard definitions of human rights. China’s track record externally is way better than western countries, judged against international law and human rights. We have to accept the ambiguity.
As to what happens if China aligns AGI first: can’t know obviously, but some aspects to consider.
1. Chinese communism had for the longest time a system of balanced, competing internal organizations. After the death of Mao I believe it was part of their success story, much as the two-term presidential limit in the US has been. It guaranteed change in leadership and thereby adaptation to new situations. This condition has changed with Xi Jinping. There is a probability that this also changes long-term certainties and stabilizing factors that contributed to China not being expansionist in a traditional way.
2. “Traditional way” is the trigger. Usage of AGI for dominance is anything but traditional. Might lead to a more flexible usage. My best bet would be: still not a war scenario, but rapidly increasing other nations’ dependence by exploiting vulnerabilities (and of course taking over Taiwan and claiming great portions of ocean if it hasn’t happened by then). It seems to fit best to the historic behaviour and the need for safety.
3. I believe there is no case to argue China’s AGI would be morally more or less desirable than a US version. If they align in any way to their country’s historic record, we are discussing trading a “golden prison with obvious brutal control” against “war machine with efficient but surgical internal control.”
Re the addendum: by 1895 the US track record for wars against established and independent neighbouring nations was already down the toilet.