[HN Gopher] What to Do
___________________________________________________________________
What to Do
Author : npalli
Score : 170 points
Date : 2025-03-29 12:24 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (paulgraham.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (paulgraham.com)
| gnuser wrote:
| Working on it. :)
|
| Looking forward to showing HN one day.
| cloogshicer wrote:
| > you should at least make sure that the new things you make
| don't net harm people or the world.
|
| How?
|
| Is the internet a net positive or net negative thing? How about
| Social Media? Is it maybe even more complex such that we can't
| tally up positive/negative "points" and a term like "net
| positive" doesn't even make sense for these things?
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| Ok, but don't make an algorithm for a sports gambling app that
| notices when people are struggling to quit and targets them
| with promotions.
| FloorEgg wrote:
| It's a hard question to answer but not impossible.
|
| Here's a bit of an oversimplification: - is what you made
| useful to anyone? If it's not, no one will use it so it doesn't
| matter. - does what you made help people be more productive or
| less productive? - does it help improve people's health or
| degrade it? - does it give people what they want in the short
| term at the cost of harming them in the long term? - does it
| help some people while actively harming others? - does it help
| people but harm the environment or other creatures?
|
| Etc.
|
| Most failure comes from not getting past the first question.
| These are easy questions to ask but very hard to answer. Most
| startup founders make up answers and then go nowhere and waste
| a bunch of time/money. Even smart people doing their best fall
| into this trap. Our system isn't good at developing people to
| be good at empathizing at scale. When people try to empathize
| at scale they over-generalize to the point of near
| meaninglessness.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| "Make good new things" overlooks a critical tension: that
| goodness itself remains contested territory. The most
| transformative innovations reveal that creation's power cuts both
| ways. The printing press spread knowledge and literacy but also
| enabled propaganda wars and religious conflicts. Nuclear fission
| powers cities with clean energy but also destroyed Hiroshima &
| Nagasaki and created existential risk. The internet connects
| billions across continents while weakening community bonds and
| fragmenting our shared reality. Each breakthrough that advances
| humanity also challenges our moral certainties.
|
| This suggests we need a fourth principle: "Cultivate discernment
| about goodness." Not merely as an afterthought, but as an
| essential companion to creation. Such discernment acknowledges
| that innovation contains both medicine and poison in the same
| vessel--and that our capacity to create has outpaced our ability
| to foresee consequences. And perhaps equally important is
| recognizing that meaningful contribution isn't always about
| creating anew, but often about cultivating what already exists:
| preserving, interpreting, and transmitting knowledge and
| practices in ways that transform both the cultivator and what is
| cultivated.
|
| Yet Graham's framing--"What should one do?"--contains a deeper
| limitation. It positions ethics as an individual pursuit in an
| age where our greatest challenges are fundamentally collective.
| "What should one do?" seems personal, but in our connected world,
| doesn't the answer depend increasingly on what seven billion
| others are doing? When more people than ever can create or
| cultivate, our challenge becomes coordinating this massive,
| parallel work toward flourishing rather than conflict and
| destruction.
|
| These principles aren't merely personal guideposts but the
| architecture for civilization's operating system. They point
| toward our central challenge: how to organize creativity and
| cultivation at planetary scale; how to balance the brilliant
| chaos of individual and organizational impetus with the steady
| hand of collective welfare. This balance requires new forms of
| governance that can channel our pursuits toward shared
| flourishing--neither controlling too tightly nor letting things
| run wild. It calls for institutions that learn and adapt as
| quickly as the world changes. And it asks us to embrace both
| freedom of pursuit and responsibility to others, seeing them as
| two sides of the same coin in a world where what you bring forth
| may shape my future.
|
| The question isn't just what should I do, but what should we
| become?
| cloogshicer wrote:
| Beautifully put. Thank you.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Totally agreed. While not bad, this all expresses a somewhat
| familiar loneliness in the world from a successful tech guy
| like pg. I think it just happens here:
|
| > The most impressive thing humans can do is to think. It may
| be the most impressive thing that can be done.
|
| Something like this has been a marker for humanism since Pico
| della Mirandolla's famous "Oration on the Dignity of Man," for
| sure, if not Aristotle before that. But there is another
| viewpoint and set of frameworks that privileges the sociality
| and capacity for working together of humans. Isn't it, at least
| arguably, more impressive what we can build only together,
| rather than what any one of us has thought up at a given time?
| Ideas feel destined, individuals are products of their time; if
| I am not going to manifest some creative idea, it seems
| inevitable someone else will eventually. With the individual,
| it could always be otherwise, e.g., all the Einsteins who die
| in sweatshops, etc.
|
| But what could not be otherwise is the brute force and cunning
| of people in general. Its much easier to replace a single CEO
| than it is an entire workforce.
|
| I am not trying to be too damning, there are certainly worse
| formulations out there, and perhaps this is all a matter of
| emphasis. I also don't expect a guy like Paul Graham to be
| anything other than this kind of individualist; there is some
| necessary investment into the ego in order to live in the world
| he does, its fine. There is just the tinge of disappointment
| for me that this is still where we are at, when the world has
| such a surplus of ideas and deficit in solidarity.
| danaris wrote:
| > The printing press spread knowledge and literacy but also
| enabled propaganda wars and religious conflicts.
|
| Not just that: it _overturned existing power structures_.
|
| In particular, it democratized information in a never-before-
| seen way, and opened the door to universal literacy.
|
| To many, many people, these in themselves would have seemed
| like the opposite of "good things". Even today, there are a
| great many people who believe strongly in the importance of
| top-down power structures and restricted information flow--and
| back in Gutenberg's day, there would have been many more, if
| only because that was what was common then.
|
| And I believe this only enhances your primary point--that we
| need to "cultivate discernment about goodness". We need to not
| merely think about what is good for us, but what is good for
| all, and be honest with ourselves about those things.
| wcfrobert wrote:
| All new inventions have tendencies to overturn existing power
| structure (i.e. disrupt the status quo). It's probably why
| certain cultures disincentivize innovation and spurn
| entrepreneurs.
|
| But I think creative destruction is a net good, and I'd argue
| that micro-dosing on revolutions is essential for dynamism
| and social mobility.
| Koshcheiushko wrote:
| This is clearly chatgpt generated.
| balamatom wrote:
| I don't think so. It's just in the kind of English that we
| are taught in order to become unable to be heard.
|
| Even if it were GPT-generated, why do you say it as if that's
| a bad thing? I thought this forum was gushing about how great
| AI is!
| Koshcheiushko wrote:
| I'm on HN to read about human written original/derived
| thinking.
|
| If poll is taken, I think vast majority HN user won't
| prefer any AI generated comment.
|
| These comments honestly just mock readers.
| dang wrote:
| Generated comments aren't allowed on HN, which is a place
| for conversation between humans.
|
| (Preferably involving as little repetition as possible.)
| balamatom wrote:
| Ok. So if generated comments aren't allowed, and if
| repetition is discouraged, why do I keep seeing these
| repetitive "is this GPT" comments maybe not quite on
| every other post but virtually every day I read something
| on here?
| dang wrote:
| Because people post repetitive things anyway.
|
| It's not as if one can control these things just by
| setting rules or asking nicely! The most we can do is
| influence things around the edges a little.
| abenga wrote:
| If someone can't be bothered to write something, I can't be
| arsed to read it. I am not here to consume strings of text,
| but to interact with other people.
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| _> Cultivate discernment about goodness_
|
| I love that. Once people realize how difficult it is to fully
| understand the ethical implications of one's actions, they
| often arrive at the defeatist conclusion that it simply doesn't
| matter, that there is no real difference between good and bad.
|
| I love the idea of "cultivating discernment about goodness"
| because it produces agency and accountability.
| voidhorse wrote:
| pg's writing is so lazy. At best he engages with thinkers in a
| superficial way, further, he never expands his horizons beyond
| the typical cadre of classics, he says nothing of actual
| intellectual substance and worth, and if anything he legitimizes
| an uncritical stance toward the world (a sort of pseudo-
| intellectual neopositivism). I still think a poverty of exposure
| and experience in the history of philosophy and literature on the
| part of his audience is the only reason he gets any sort of
| readership.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Yeah. I've never been particularly fond of the "traditional"
| computing essays by Stallman et. al, but compared to PG's
| essays they read like Tolkien.
| bayarearefugee wrote:
| I agree with you in the general case but I'd also add that this
| specific post is even worse than the usual stuff he writes.
|
| It's a 1500 word essay that says absolutely nothing at all.
| jpm_sd wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| " _Don 't be snarky._"
|
| " _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of
| other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us
| something._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| graycat wrote:
| Maybe PG is "superficial". Hmm ... It may be that commonly
| _drilling down_ as deep as can is not productive and, instead,
| there is some wisdom that commonly productive solutions are
| surprisingly simplistic, i.e., "superficial"?
| sctb wrote:
| To add to this: I think pg does drill down, but what he does
| more than most is make the effort to bring those insights
| back up.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| Can you recommend a writer you like? Have you written anything?
| bayarearefugee wrote:
| "Have you done XYZ?" is such a lame counter to criticism of
| someone else doing XYZ badly.
|
| You don't have to have made a movie to recognize a bad movie.
|
| You don't have to have built a car to recognize a poorly
| designed car.
|
| You don't have to have written a song to recognize
| unlistenable garbage.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| It's not a counter, I'm looking for more information.
| voidhorse wrote:
| I can recommend several. If pg's essays have some amount of
| appeal to you, you are probably potentially interested in
| philosophy, here are just a few people who have authored
| works of far greater eloquence, depth, and significance than
| anything paul graham has ever written:
|
| Wittgenstein, Rousseau, Marcuse, Horkheimer, Adorno,
| Foucault, Ryle, Montaigne, Maggie Nelson, Didion, Bertrand
| Russel, Jean Paul Sartre, Roland Barthes, Niklas Luhmann,
| Norbert Wiener, Hienz von Forester, Hans Georg Gadamer,
| Juergen Habermas, Rebeca Solnit...
|
| And these are just the few people that came to mind off the
| cuff. If I bothered to look I could probably give you more.
|
| These tech luminaries act as though no philosophy or
| significant social analysis or cultural criticism has
| happened in the west since Plato and Cicero, but it's
| simply...entirely untrue. There's a wealth of deep, enriching
| philosophical heritage to explore, and I think these bozos
| don't engage with it because they are either too lazy (much
| easier to read translations of the classics) too disingenuous
| (much easier to base your sophistry on material that is so
| old as to not be contested) , or too self righteous (they
| already possess the one truth birthed directly by the divine
| cells of their brains because they like the lisp programming
| language and worked at yahoo, so why bother to interact with
| the thought of others in a serious way?) to bother. Not to
| mention, they don't dare engage with the highly complex
| _dedicated_ academic studies of the classics anyway. I doubt
| pg has done little more than read a modern translation of
| Cicero. Probably not even Leob, probably Penguin Random
| House. But hey, those ignorant of the gold vein will happily
| lop up pewter.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| Thanks for that list. I've read about a third of Plato's
| dialogues (penguin classics, lol) but I'm still at the
| beginning of my philosophical journey. After I finish Plato
| I'll start reading the works of modern philosophers. There
| are many on your list I haven't even heard of.
|
| Regarding pg, I think what happens is when people get rich
| they think that gives them deep philosophical insight into
| things. It's not just tech people, I think the same thing
| happened to Ray Dalio, for instance.
| BoingBoomTschak wrote:
| You realize that navel-gazing metaphysics and philosophy
| aren't the same thing, right? Your list contains such a
| quantity of intellectuals with low substance to verbiage
| ratio that I hope it was made in jest.
|
| Regardless of potential faults in pg's writings, which are
| indeed more collected thoughts than essays. And I don't
| even agree with this one, creating should be left to those
| capable of doing it well (which means at least some degree
| of perfectionism, developed aesthetic sense and
| inspiration) and those rarely need external encouragement.
| The others should cultivate their virtue and maintain an
| iron will within a steel body, the world (both individuals
| and as a whole) would certainly benefit much more from
| this.
| voidhorse wrote:
| The list I gave is sufficiently broad (incorporating
| essayist, analytic philosophers, and continental
| philosophers) that I'm not sure how you could claim it
| consists of nothing but navel gazers and metaphysicians
| unless you didn't looks at the list carefully and made
| assumptions or unless you mean to write off basically all
| of philosophy (in fact, the basic program of more than
| one of the authors I mentioned was to demolish
| traditional metaphysics as bunk philosophy).
|
| Bertrand Russel (along with Whitehead) and Wittgenstein
| are both crucial figures in the resurgence of logical
| research and the development of modern mathematics.
| Norbert Wiener, beyond his more philosophical reflections
| on the integration of machines into society, made
| significant advances in signal processing. Rousseau is
| one of the founding figures of modern political thought
| and the concept of right.
|
| Create all the drivel you want, I don't have a problem
| with that. What I do think, however, is that when you are
| in a position of influence like pg, you have some amount
| of responsibility to publish works that are well
| researched and scientific to the extent that they can be.
| Scientific in the philosophical context often means work
| that engages in some meaningful way with tradition, or
| that at the very least lays out logical argument.
|
| I would accept the stance that perhaps pg is just
| publishing personal musing here, and it is the fault of
| his audience to take them as seriously as they do, but if
| that's the case I feel even more strongly that reasonable
| and responsible people who have studied these traditions
| should argue against these claims and urge others to
| desire and seek more.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I still think a poverty of exposure and experience in the
| history of philosophy and literature on the part of his
| audience is the only reason he gets any sort of readership.
|
| That and people who hero-worship him for his role in YC and
| some of his other previous business and/or technical work and
| assume everything he does is valuable because of that.
| Madmallard wrote:
| I personally don't think technology for the most part is good for
| society. It makes nature boring and predictable and life less
| interesting as a whole if this is true, but I don't think we even
| understand the degree to which technology is just ruining life
| for the future. We don't have adaptations to deal with anything
| and adaptations take tens of thousands of years if not way more
| to occur. The romantic thought is that technology can help us
| solve the problems that come up as a result of itself, but I'm
| less optimistic there just because of how things have been going.
| It seems like human nature and us not being good at understanding
| large complex systems as a species results in the malignant
| actors and developments taking root and metastasizing over time.
|
| - global warming - antibiotic resistance - environmental
| contamination - food quality diminishing - explosive increase in
| chronic disease, especially in young people - extinction of most
| other species - fertility problems - declining birth rates -
| poly-pharmacy becoming normal - now things related to energy
| consumption with AI and cryptocurrency - huge decline in social
| behaviors across the population
|
| Just seems like for every new advancement we're making new
| chronic issues that are barely incentivized at all for being
| managed and alleviated
| pvg wrote:
| At the beginning of the 1800s, half of people's children died.
| We literally beat fucking Thanos for children. That's not a
| 'romantic thought'.
| georgemcbay wrote:
| The wheel is technology, metallurgy is technology, irrigation
| is technology.
|
| Technology is vital to a functioning society.
|
| There's certainly more debate to be had whether various bits of
| modern technology are net positive or net negative, but even
| still I personally believe modern technology is mostly neutral
| to very good for humanity in a vacuum and it is other forces
| like modern capitalism that bend it toward being harmful.
|
| eg. Social media is very clearly having a net negative impact
| on modern society, but I don't believe that would still be true
| if it wasn't driven by algorithms created to maximize ad
| revenue above all other concerns.
|
| And obviously there is some inherent coupling of modern
| technology and capitalism that isn't avoidable, but I don't
| think capitalism on its own is wholly bad, its the slavish
| cult-like worship of it as the only way to do things that
| causes it to be so destructive.
| risyachka wrote:
| The issue is not technology but how and where it is applied.
|
| Tens and tens of billions are spent to generate cute pics
| instead of same tech applied to radiology, diseases cure, etc.
| a2code wrote:
| > The most impressive thing humans can do is to think. > And the
| best kind of thinking, or more precisely the best proof that one
| has thought well, is to make good new things. > ... but making
| good new things is a should in the sense that this is how to live
| to one's full potential.
|
| I urge you not to take these opinions as facts. Originality is
| admirable, but it is not "your potential", "proof of great
| thoughts", or "the most impressive thing you can do".
|
| The answer to the question: What to do? is not "Make new things",
| but rather begins with a simple question: In what context?
|
| The idea of dividing people into two categories: 1) those who
| "take care of people and the world", and those who 2) "make good
| new things", is harmful.
| graycat wrote:
| Do? Make money enough to support self and family and then have a
| good family.
|
| Understand people. With all the talk in the news about the
| current Disney _Snow White_ , got out the DVD for the old Disney
| _Cinderella_ : Yup, have learned enough about people to see that
| the many plot events are not just incidental for the drama but
| examples of deep fundamentals about people. In particular
| understand what's important for good family formation.
|
| Understand human societies, e.g., cultures, religions, economies,
| politics, war and peace.
|
| Understand academics: E.g., a lot of academics that has done
| research that results in good tools to enable "Make good new
| things" has deep contempt for doing that.
|
| Understand, say, math, physical science, biology, medical
| science, nature, technology, fine arts.
| sitkack wrote:
| Is Paul giving himself a pass for the companies he funds?
| booleandilemma wrote:
| I read it more like he's considering what to throw his money
| at, and it sounds like he wants to throw his money at companies
| that make good new things.
| sitkack wrote:
| But then he doesn't really define good, makes an odd
| comparison to a now acclaimed pulp fiction author and then
| says we can only really know what is good after the fact.
|
| Leaning on "new" so hard as part of the "good" just reduces
| to, "Make new-new things that aren't by every objective
| measure _bad_ and see if it works out in hindsight ".
|
| It would be helpful if we understood what good and bad mean
| to him.
| mbesto wrote:
| His essay from 2008[0] is just as nebulous. When you have
| such a hand-wavy definition of such an important term, it
| ultimately means you can wield your narrative to fit any
| conclusion you want.
|
| [0] - https://www.paulgraham.com/good.html
| thrance wrote:
| With his multiple endorsements of MAGA I fear his definition
| of "good" is severley warped. Is ensuring the poor don't die
| of preventable diseases good? Not to this guy.
| pesus wrote:
| Yeah, this feels like an attempt to (partially
| preemptively?) rehabilitate his image/legacy more than
| anything. If he makes a blog saying how important it is to
| "make good new things", then surely everything he makes is
| a good new thing! No need to look further to see what he
| actually supports.
| mhb wrote:
| Any second thoughts about Flock (YC17) or others?
| jodrellblank wrote:
| "thoughts by a billionaire. self-praising. spiritually
| enriching. sophisticated. 'high' value"
|
| "thoughts by a commoner. critical. base. self-deluding juvenile
| hack work. 'low' value"
|
| "thoughts by a billionaire about how critics are delusional and
| self-important. Sophisticated irony. philosophically
| challenging. 'high' value"
|
| "suppose I say the author is giving himself a pass for the
| companies he funds?"
|
| "sophomoric. intellectually sterile. 'low' value"
|
| - https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/07/20
|
| ("making things rather than, say, making critical observations
| about things other people have made. Those are ideas too, and
| sometimes valuable ones, but it's easy to trick oneself into
| believing they're more valuable than they are. Criticism seems
| sophisticated")
| hsshhshshjk wrote:
| Is making music something "good and new"? Art?
| sctb wrote:
| Explicitly yes:
|
| > I mean new things in a very general sense. Newton's physics
| was a good new thing. Indeed, the first version of this
| principle was to have good new ideas. But that didn't seem
| general enough: it didn't include making art or music, for
| example, except insofar as they embody new ideas.
| brody_hamer wrote:
| What more can a person do than eat, drink, and take joy in their
| work?
| euvin wrote:
| That raises the question of what work they should pursue.
| whatrocks wrote:
| Somewhat similar to my answer (borrowed from children's publisher
| Klutz Press): "Create wonderful things, be good, have fun"
|
| https://charlieharrington.com/create-wonderful-things-be-goo...
| oleggromov wrote:
| This is a great inspiring story and wonderful books. Thank you!
| Trying to find them now.
| ofrzeta wrote:
| There's a book about knots by Klutz that was featured here.
| Comes with string(s) attached.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| I'm not a frayed knot.
| mylidlpony wrote:
| > you should at least make sure that the new things you make
| don't net harm people or the world
|
| That's rich coming from pg. Is he really in a position to
| dispense this valuable advice? Did he ever look back at his
| contributions to this world through this prism? Does he consider
| the impacts of friends he has, platforms he uses and promotes,
| posts he writes, on lives of other people? Does he think just
| withdrawing from new decisions made by (the thing) is enough to
| wash his hands from all the negative impacts such decisions
| cause? People tend to attribute good outcomes to their own
| contributions and hand wave bad ones to forces outside their
| control, and this article is a great case in point for this
| phenomena.
| tim333 wrote:
| I don't think pg does net harm. Obviously funding hundreds of
| start ups you might think some iffy but overall it seems
| positive?
| mellosouls wrote:
| In lieu of explanation I'm guessing the flagging is knee-jerk
| anti-PG stuff.
|
| Disappointing response.
| sidcool wrote:
| Why are people anti-PG?
| mellosouls wrote:
| I don't know except I get the impression from reading
| responses to him over time that he represents something
| frustrating to some people here and on X.
| an0malous wrote:
| [flagged]
| smt88 wrote:
| He comes across as vapid, self-important, and out of touch
| with normal non-rich people.
| dang wrote:
| Regardless of whom you're putting down, how right you are,
| or feel you are, comments like this and
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43370236 are badly
| against the site guidelines. Please don't post any more of
| these to HN.
|
| If you wouldn't mind reviewing
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking
| the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be
| grateful.
| trymas wrote:
| Someone should correct me if I am wrong, but AFAIK - PG
| stands behind current shift in USA's status quo. That is,
| support of MAGA, Trump, DOGE, techno takeover of USA, that
| vague idea of of converting USA into totalitarian corporate
| city states controlled by billionaire techno class.
|
| Though last one shouldn't be surprising as it was endorsed by
| YC 10+ years ago.
|
| Hence - people are now much more critical of him.
| drweevil wrote:
| Not the first time I find myself wishing there was some
| explanation about the flagging.
| dang wrote:
| The explanation is basically always the same: users flagged it.
|
| Why? Who can say? One would have to ask them, and that wouldn't
| work anyhow.
| echoangle wrote:
| Well you could have a dropdown with reasons when flagging,
| and hope that people select the real reason they are flagging
| it.
| dang wrote:
| When you say "hope", I think you're touching on the
| problem, which is that they wouldn't.
| luckylion wrote:
| I did not flag this, but I've flagged stuff before that I don't
| want to see more of on HN because it feels like it would ruin
| what I enjoy. If I need "Person did X - What happened next will
| surprise you", I'd go to reddit, so I'll flag that type of low-
| quality content.
|
| I don't know why people flagged this, but I often had the
| impression that PG's content ends up on the front page because
| he's PG, not because it's particularly interesting or
| noteworthy. Maybe the people flagging it feel similar.
| archagon wrote:
| Until I hear a vote of no confidence from Paul for YC's current
| leadership, I have no interest in anything he has to say. After
| all, Elon Musk -- the guy cheerfully and illegally dismantling
| the federal government, who called my friends "parasites" for
| taking benefits and apparently wants to see witnesses against
| the president executed, who enthusiastically supports far-right
| populist parties like the AfD and makes suspiciously Nazi-
| looking salutes on stage -- is still invited to YC's AI Startup
| School. Garry Tan, it seems, has no problem with any of this.
| I'm sure he relishes a new world order where he sits on the
| board of Yarvin's fever dream government.
|
| Want to do something good, Paul? Do everything in your power to
| stem the bleed of encroaching fascism and neo-reactionaryism.
| Put your reputation and wallet on the line. Be a leader.
| Otherwise, you're just posting platitudes while one of the
| world's great democracies dies an agonizing death by the hands
| of your peers.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| Reminded me instantly of the 1845 text Who Is to Blame? [1] and
| the 1863 follow-up What Is to Be Done? [2] that defined
| progressive thought in Russian until the 1917 revolution.
|
| But this text is so escapist... I am ashamed to have read it.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Is_to_Blame%3F
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F_(novel)
| sidcool wrote:
| Why is this flagged? Disagreements can be expressed in comments.
| Weird to be honest.
| nineplay wrote:
| I'm starting to wonder if posters are flagging everything in
| response to the clear political censorship going on. If
| everything is flagged than nothing is flagged.
| bananapub wrote:
| [flagged]
| sph wrote:
| Nothing like your embarrassment when you find out this very
| website is owned by YC.
|
| Protests are usually found _outside_ the gates, not in the
| lounge while sipping on the complimentary coffee.
| dang wrote:
| I appreciate your intentions but can you please not break the
| site guidelines the way you've been doing in this thread? It
| just makes things worse.
| aptj wrote:
| Hey guys, while some of the criticism in the comments is pretty
| sound, keep in mind that genuine authors (and PG too) write first
| of all to entertain themselves, as a way to have a more clear
| reflection on their thinking. And they publish to learn from
| readers' responses.
| smt88 wrote:
| I don't understand the point of your comment.
|
| Are you saying we shouldn't take his seriously? We shouldn't
| take him literally? We should give him a pass for writing
| axiomatic drivel with nothing concrete or thoughtful in it?
| amriksohata wrote:
| Find a higher purpose
| coolThingsFirst wrote:
| Every single essay is the same from this guy.
|
| Make something amazing is not an insight.
| tediousgraffit1 wrote:
| This. No one, not even the very wicked, get up in the morning
| and think 'Im going to go make some old, bad stuff, because I'd
| like to decrease the amount of The Good in the world.' This
| article reads like the height of narcissistic navel-gazing,
| with absolutely zero nontrivial insight.
| kubb wrote:
| Shallow platitudes for nerds? I'll inject them straight into my
| veins if the guy dealing has enough money. I mean is a
| successful tech entrepreneur and visionary.
| praptak wrote:
| I disagree that creating new things should be prioritised[0].
| There's too many things already and the most pressing problems
| have solutions which are not new, just hard to apply for
| political reasons.
|
| [0] Saying "prioritised" instead of "good", because "creating
| good new things" is tautologically, uninterestingly "good".
| mooktakim wrote:
| Not everyone can create new things, or create new things all
| the time. The rest of the time they can make better use of
| existing things
| praptak wrote:
| That too, but my disagreement is more fundamental: even if
| you can create good new things, there are probably[0] better
| things to do with your resources than creating them.
|
| [0] This is a small escape hatch for "what if one can only
| create new things" or "actual cure for cancer".
| mooktakim wrote:
| Yes absolutely, you can do both.
|
| One good thing about new ideas is that it becomes an
| enabler for everyone else who are not working on new ideas.
| Similar to how technology democratises peoples abilities.
| spongebobstoes wrote:
| If something is difficult/impossible to apply for political
| reasons, maybe something new can make it easier/possible.
|
| It might be a new philosophy, message, movement, technology,
| space, gathering, poem, or otherwise.
|
| If something is so hard to do, for political reasons, it might
| be time to try something new. The goal might be the same, but
| maybe a new approach will yield better results.
| colonCapitalDee wrote:
| Political problems can be solved with technical solutions. Take
| the problem of food insecurity in third-world countries as an
| example. It's a hard problem to solve because transporting food
| overland via unpaved roads through politically unstable areas
| is expensive and dangerous. Long-term, using highly-productive
| first-world agribusiness to feed the third-world will fail,
| because no matter how cheaply agribusiness can produce food the
| transportation costs will make the whole enterprise cost
| prohibitive. This is a political problem: we can easily produce
| enough food to feed the entire world, but we can't get that
| food to the places where it is most needed due to political
| instability. But it's a political problem with an engineering
| solution. If the tools and techniques needed to efficiently
| grow food are cheap and widely available, farmers in
| politically unstable areas can simply grow their own food
| without a dependence on far away agribusiness. GMO crops
| crafted for nutritional value and hardiness, easily accessible
| guides on farming best practices, weather forecasting,
| irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides, financial markets to hedge
| against risk, cheap tools and machinery; these are all unsolved
| or partially solved problems. Whenever someone comes up with a
| "good new thing" that improves the SOTA in terms of value per
| dollar in one of these areas, we get closer to solving the
| political problem of global food security.
|
| If political realities prevent us from solving problems, then
| we can either change the political realities or create new
| solutions. Individuals generally can't change political
| realities, but they can create good new things that work around
| them. So it is good advice.
| jstanley wrote:
| > There's too many things already
|
| In what sense?
|
| History hasn't finished. There's more things today than there
| were yesterday, and there will be more things tomorrow than
| there are today.
|
| If you stop making new things because you think there's already
| enough things, you're just confining yourself to the world as
| it exists today. Do you think the world has finished? Do you
| think it can't be improved?
|
| If you want to build the world of tomorrow you're going to have
| to make some of the things that exist tomorrow that don't exist
| today.
|
| And once you've accepted that you need to make new things, I
| don't think it's much of a leap to accept that it's good to
| make good new things.
| smokel wrote:
| _> For most of history the question "What should one do?" got
| much the same answer everywhere_
|
| This is so not true, that I'd like to point the author, and
| people who think in a similar vein, to a very enjoyable podcast
| on the history of philosophy, namely the "History of Philosophy
| without any Gaps" [1].
|
| Hopefully this will persuade you that there are many ways to
| think about what to do with the life that was given to you. Pick
| two random Greek philosophers and they would probably take
| opposing standpoints. And if Confucius might say that you should
| be wise, I guess that Lao Tse would promptly disagree.
|
| Our Western culture has largely been shaped by Christian values,
| yet when I observe the ideas of the obscenely wealthy, I can only
| lament how little those values seem to be understood or embodied.
|
| [1] https://historyofphilosophy.net/
| James_K wrote:
| PG seems to love making grand statements like this regarding
| things about which he has little knowledge.
| abtinf wrote:
| The author has a phd in philosophy.
| smokel wrote:
| This comment is a bit puzzling to me.
|
| The author of the podcast does indeed have a PhD in
| philosophy, but Paul Graham does not. The latter holds a PhD
| in computer science.
| d4v3 wrote:
| I found myself thinking about something similar recently. It had
| to do with the Optifye.ai fiasco, and the difference between
| solving problems / creating things for the 'common man' vs. for
| the 'ruling class'. I think I much prefer the former.
| abc-1 wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| " _Don 't be snarky._"
|
| " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents._ "
|
| " _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other
| people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| James_K wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| " _Don 't be snarky._"
|
| " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents._ "
|
| " _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other
| people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| James_K wrote:
| I find your decision to quote these guidelines in this way
| both snarky and shallowly dismissive. If you can't follow
| your own guidelines, I certainly won't be jumping at the
| opportunity.
| tlogan wrote:
| I think the issue with saying "make good new things" is that
| things themselves aren't inherently good or bad--they're just
| things. It's the person who makes them that can be good or bad.
|
| I have a saying (among others from my dad) that captures a
| similar idea: "Make things, and be good."
| ulbu wrote:
| a dish from made bad food is bad food. a program that deletes
| your important data is a bad program.
|
| so no: things relate to each other and in this relation, they
| can be objectively bad (bad to the object subjected to its
| effects). Things don't exist without the effects their
| existence exerts. Rephrased: the question of their goodness is,
| commonly, a question of fitness.
| tediousgraffit1 wrote:
| That just pushes the question off a step; a chair fit for
| sitting isn't fit for sleeping, etc. Fitness assumes a
| purpose.
| allie1 wrote:
| I think it's good in the sense of things that are positively
| affecting others' lives.
| FloorEgg wrote:
| Things can be good or bad when put in a value system context.
| There is tremendous overlap between everyone's value system, it
| just doesn't feel this way because the majority of most
| people's attention is on where they don't overlap.
|
| A loaf of bread is good for a person who is starving, but less
| good to someone with celiac disease. A bowl or rice is more
| good to a starving person with celiac than a loaf of bread,
| etc.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> One should help people, and take care of the world. Those two
| are obvious._
|
| From what I encounter, almost daily, I don't think everyone is on
| the same page, on that; especially amongst folks of means.
|
| I have seen people without a pot to piss in, treat others -even
| complete strangers- with respect, love, caring, and patience, and
| folks with _a lot_ of money, treat others most barbarously;
| especially when they consider those "others," to be folks that
| don't have the capability to hit back or stand up for themselves.
|
| As to what I do, I've been working to provide free software
| development to organizations that help each other, for a long
| time. It's usually worked out, but it is definitely a labor of
| love. The rewards aren't especially concrete. I'll never get an
| award, never make any money at it, and many of the folks that I
| have helped, have been fairly curt in their response.
|
| I do it anyway.
| copperx wrote:
| I am really curious about your ethos here. It seems to me
| there's nothing for you in it. either psychologal, social, or
| financially.
|
| Is it more like a calling? a spiritual consolation?
| dartos wrote:
| > it is definitely a labor of love
|
| Some people do things because they like doing those things...
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Yup. I've always liked doing this stuff, and it's nice to
| have means, and an excuse to do it.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| The happiness feedback from making others happier -- even
| if just less miserable -- is the most excellent feeling
| known to man. Once a person tastes it, nothing else will
| ever compare.
|
| Lovingly serving others' happiness is a part of the
| asymmetric dynamics of the human universe, only
| accessible and operant in the world of free will and the
| ability to learn and manifest right from wrong, love from
| callous disregard or even cruelty, creation or
| destruction.
|
| Peace be with you, though I hardly need say that to
| someone who already understands peace beyond what most
| can comprehend. Thanks for having your boots on the
| ground.
| copperx wrote:
| > Some people do things because they like doing those
| things...
|
| If that's the case, that means there's something in it for
| you, enjoyment.
| dartos wrote:
| Sure, why not.
| conductr wrote:
| Service to others is certainly something that fills people's
| cups and sometimes the best way to serve is to offer your
| expertise in whatever domain it may be.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| Do the things that reflect the world you want to live in. If
| you inspire others they may inspire others and it could grow
| into something bigger, one day you could find yourself living
| in that world.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Long story.
|
| I'm a longtime member of an organization that is about
| helping others. It's not something that I go into detail
| about, at the level of press, radio or films.
|
| Also, selfishly, I really enjoy this kind of work; especially
| at a craftsman level. It's nice to have an excuse to do it.
| hazn wrote:
| I do believe that personal narrative place a huge role here. I
| know of a poll, in which over 80% of the people believed
| they're going to end up in heaven.
|
| most people believe they do good and care about other people.
| unclad5968 wrote:
| If we're talking about Christianity, the bible says all you
| need is to believe that when Jesus died your sins against God
| were forgiven. It doesn't say anything about going to heaven
| or hell based on how good you were. In fact, it explicity
| says that going to heaven is not based on "works".
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Not Christianity, but similar ethos.
|
| At my age, it's kind of vital to have a Purpose, so there's
| that...
| graemep wrote:
| Its a bit more complex and varied: Christian universalists
| believe everyone is saved, some (albeit small) churches
| believe only a few people are.
|
| A lot of people are not Christian, nor belong to any other
| religion, but have a vague belief in a God and many of
| those do believe good people go to heaven. https://en.m.wik
| ipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_therapeutic_deism
| MrMcCall wrote:
| That's why being brutally truthful with yourself is essential
| in learning how to love others so as to actually become a
| good person.
|
| The worst lies we tell are most often the ones we tell
| ourselves.
|
| It's just like the low-achieving over-confident folks of
| Dunning-Kruger: they don't really care about the truth,
| they're satisfied just believing they're an expert. The
| _real_ experts take a far different tac, one of humility and
| intense, honest work.
|
| "Nothing is more important than compassion and only the truth
| is its equal."
| WA wrote:
| > _It 's just like the low-achieving over-confident folks
| of Dunning-Kruger: they don't really care about the truth,
| they're satisfied just believing they're an expert. The
| real experts take a far different tac, one of humility and
| intense, honest work._
|
| Do you also love these kinds of people?
| whiplash451 wrote:
| And why would that be a problem or impossible?
|
| Maybe 80% of the people are good people and 0.1% of people
| are responsible for most of the world's misery.
| bko wrote:
| I'm one of those people that doesn't think we should try to
| "take care of the world". I prefer the older, time tested
| answer of what to do:
|
| > You should be wise, brave, honest, temperate, and just,
| uphold tradition, and serve the public interest
|
| As noted in the essay, this idea of "taking care of the world"
| is relatively new. PG claims it's because only now we can take
| care of the world, but I think it's just a naive idea that
| doesn't stand the test of time. I'm sure its not novel idea,
| and many others had thought of it and tried to implement some
| version of it in their society. But because it hasn't become
| cannon in any group or culture, it's a bad idea in that it
| doesn't produce human flourishing. Whereas ideas around wisdom,
| bravery, honesty, etc have replicated throughout cultures and
| led to everything we cherish
|
| The idea is that you cannot take care of the world if you can't
| take care of yourself. So at first you must be these things.
| Ironically the most empathetic people I have met that purport
| to care most about "the world" are often the most dysfunctional
| people - substance abuse, medications, no strong family ties,
| anxiety, neuroticism, etc. These aren't people we should try to
| emulate.
|
| Only when you have your house in order can you attempt to help
| others. Start with the people immediately around you. People
| you know and love and that know and love you. If you've ever
| dealt with a family member with a serious problem, you'll see
| how difficult for you to help them. Now imagine helping a
| friend, then casual acquaintance, then stranger finally a
| stranger on the other side of the world.
|
| We should have humility as to what kind of impact we can have
| on the world and look inward to those around us where we can
| have the most impact. Otherwise you might as well wipe out
| hundreds of thousands of people and spend trillions of dollars
| spreading democracy in the middle east.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I like the "police your area" approach.
|
| _> "I was in the Air Force a while, and they had what they
| call 'policing the area,' and I think that's a pretty good
| thing to go by. If everyone just takes care of their own
| area, then we won't have any problems. Be here. Be present.
| Wherever you are, be there. And look around you, and see what
| needs to be changed."
|
| -Willie Nelson_
| MrMcCall wrote:
| > Be here. Be present.
|
| Most especially be aware of others' happiness or misery,
| along with our own heart's intentions and actions and how
| they affect both others and ourselves. Our sense of inner
| peace is dependent on how our karma radiates back into our
| heart from how we have affected others. This is the most
| sublime rule of the universe: you reap what you sow, for
| good or ill.
|
| Cultivate universal compassion and then shine its
| beneficient light on as many people as you can with real
| effortful service.
|
| That is the purest heading for our moral compass, and it's
| always our choice both what we choose to do and how to
| course correct our ideals, attitudes, and behaviors.
|
| We _ALL_ need to self-reflect and -evolve for the majority
| of our life, slogging through mistake after failure after
| falling short of the mark, learning humility and
| perseverance and mercy for others who need even more grace
| than we do.
|
| "Love is the astrolabe of God's mysteries." --Rumi
| bko wrote:
| This is pretty obvious and how most people raise their
| kids. Parents often use the phrase "we don't do that".
|
| 12 year old asking her friend can have a social media
| account but she can't. TV, food habits, bedtime, etc. Not
| our problem. Also applies to cleaning up what's around you.
| The alternative is paralysis and not cleaning up anything.
|
| I've seen images of pro-environment demonstrations that
| just trash their immediate surroundings while pretending to
| be concerned about the global state of pollution.
| cmdli wrote:
| Some of the people who have done the worst things in history
| have been well put together people. The man who is ruthless
| and puts himself before everything oftentimes ends up
| successful, wealthy, and with plenty of resources to take
| care of himself and the people he chooses. Does that make him
| a good person?
|
| One of the most important, time-tested values is one of
| responsibility and honor. That means doing the right thing
| with the power that you do have, both by yourself and by
| others, even if it hurts you. We each are responsible for the
| environment (natural and man-made) that we inhabit, and to
| that extent it is our duty to help others and ourselves.
|
| We have been given many, many resources at our disposal, and
| we bear the responsibility to use them well. Too often in our
| society we shirk that responsibility with the excuse "well,
| its not _our_ problem ".
| bko wrote:
| Some of the most horrific atrocities have been done by
| people trying to " take care of the world"
|
| > We have been given many, many resources at our disposal,
| and we bear the responsibility to use them well.
|
| You should use "I" rather than "we" and I would agree. I've
| been given the gift of life in my children and I do
| everything for them. Fortunately I have resources to spare
| and try to take care of my family and neighbors as well,
| and I suggest you do the same.
| cmdli wrote:
| I do, and I do so with the knowledge that this is a
| responsibility that has been placed on me, and others, by
| the gifts that have been given to me. I help others and
| contribute to society, as is my duty, and I expect others
| to do the same. I also expect the same responsibility,
| trustworthiness, and honor of those who have been given
| power.
| strken wrote:
| The best people I know do good in both local and global
| ways. It's not necessary to choose one or the other. I
| don't disagree with your examples, but I notice that they
| say nothing about donating money to World Vision or
| putting solar panels on your roof, for example. Replace
| these with causes you believe are good.
|
| This might be unfair, but I'd summarise what you said as
| "living a charitable life, but only for people within
| 50km of your house", and I think it's fairly obvious that
| "living a charitable life, mostly for people within 50km
| of your house, but also you give $50 a month to an
| international charity and you try to generate a bit less
| carbon dioxide" is better for the world, better for you
| because you don't have to harden your heart, and wouldn't
| harm most people's ability to look after themselves.
|
| I agree that it's possible to be too neurotic about this
| and do what Sam Bankman-Fried did. It's also possible to
| be a little better than average at caring for the world
| without much cost to yourself. I don't understand why
| anyone would have a problem with the latter.
| gnramires wrote:
| I've repeatedly made the case for something similar. But I
| don't think the argument should be "Taking care of yourself,
| in any case, yields better outcome, even for others, than
| prioritizing the common good. So the fundamental principle
| should be putting yourself first.". First, it's not always
| true that taking care of yourself is always the best --
| sacrifice does exist and is important.
|
| If you as say a father always put your own wellbeing (or some
| other definition of self-interest) first, then you're going
| to be a pretty lousy father. But you shouldn't ignore
| yourself. It's all about striking a balance, and in the end
| this balance simply aims toward the common good.
|
| It doesn't make sense to say that because sometimes a naive,
| "greedy" strive toward the common good doesn't work then the
| principle is false.
|
| You can carve real basis for the common good and other
| metaphysical principles. One such basis is that,
| metaphysically, the supreme valuation of the self is on very
| shaky ground. The self, although very important conceptually,
| doesn't stand up as an ultimate metaphysical basis, because
| we are really dynamic results of a whole network of
| interactions that includes not only whatever happens in our
| brains, but the whole cosmos -- there's no absolute boundary
| between yourself and others, and everything is always
| fundamentally changing. You from today is different from
| yesterday, and significantly different from many years ago.
| The common good is much more metaphysically defensible.
| That's why most metaphysical traditions (religions, usually)
| almost universally put the common good (sometimes enacted by
| God) above all else -- it really makes the most sense imo[1].
| Again, you shouldn't be naive about it, and _in practice_ and
| in most cases it makes sense to first take basic care of
| yourself, "keeping your house", and then go help others, but
| this is more a guideline, heuristic and reminder (specially
| important to give for radical altruists, but common sense for
| most people I think).
|
| But really if yourself is your actual fundamental priority, I
| think you will act very poorly. Although even in that case
| there are good strategic reasons to be cooperative (people
| thinking you are evil or egoistical will already turn around
| many people and compromise relationships and cooperation
| opportunities).
|
| [1] If you don't buy this metaphysical formulation, there's
| an (I believe) ultimately equivalent formulation that may be
| easier to accept: the fact that you "Could exist/could have
| been born as another person". If in some metaphysical sense
| you could have been born as that poor person that needs
| assistance, doesn't it make sense to help her, which
| logically implies that if you were in their shoes you would
| be helped?
| codr7 wrote:
| True! If you need help, go to the poor.
|
| People who have everything they need will make up a story where
| you deserve your troubles to avoid facing their own
| vulnerability.
| smeeth wrote:
| It's not just that people disagree on whether or not to do
| these things, it's also that they disagree on what helps
| people/the world.
|
| An evangelical and an atheist will probably disagree about the
| helpfulness of spreading the gospel, for example.
| wcfrobert wrote:
| > "Criticism seems sophisticated, and making new things often
| seems awkward, especially at first; and yet it's precisely those
| first steps that are most rare and valuable."
|
| This is what makes silicon valley is so amazing. It's filled with
| those who want to make good new things, who aren't afraid of
| looking awkward. This type of culture is actually quite weird. In
| most other places, you'd be dissuaded by conventional wisdom, or
| "who-do-you-think-you-are-isms".
| KPGv2 wrote:
| > It's filled with those who want to make good new things
|
| It's crazy you think this is even remotely unique to SV. Broad
| swaths of the country (referred to as "flyover" by coastal
| people) are fully employed in the production of new things that
| are essential to the survival of the human race.
|
| Just, for some reason, you think "new things" is just bleep
| bloop and not moo oink.
| KPGv2 wrote:
| [flagged]
| aoanevdus wrote:
| Why even go through the effort of making a criticism when you
| can satisfy the urge simply by pointing and implying one
| exists?
| dang wrote:
| " _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other
| people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| giardini wrote:
| A good idea and one that Elon Musk tries to do. But he chose to
| go into politics too. Now his every move (even every past move)
| seems to be under scrutiny and politicized. Of course, this isn't
| the first time this has happened, but it is unfortunate that
| human behavior today is so.
| jebarker wrote:
| I don't believe you can choose to make good (whatever that means)
| things. You can certainly choose not to try, but choosing to try
| and believing you'll succeed is a recipe for disappointment in my
| opinion. All you can do is make a sincere effort at whatever you
| choose to do and the world will decide if it's good or not.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| You can use it as a guiding principle and go about your life.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| I find this essay quite bland, inane even.
| sfpotter wrote:
| I find that with Paul Graham's writing, once you stop and think
| about what he's saying, almost nothing he says holds up under
| scrutiny. He's basically just a propagandist for VC-backed
| startups and a certain concomitant worldview.
| mola wrote:
| Seems like pg posts breed bad discussions filled with snarky low
| content comments. Why not automatically down vote it like you do
| to all other political content? Eh dang?
| dachworker wrote:
| I think people are being a bit too negative and maybe that is
| because they are not used to pg's style of slogans in baby talk.
| I think the gist of what pg is saying is that you should have
| some agency and initiative and not spend your whole life being
| the side character in other people's stories. This serves two
| purposes. First of all, it maximizes your chances of gaining
| wealth, power and influence. And secondly if you care to make the
| world a better place, it also increases your chances of having an
| impact.
|
| The novelty is important, because, tautologically, if your are
| just copying others, you are still a side character in their
| story. However, I do not think this should be read as, "create
| the next unicorn startup". I think it is rather a principle to
| live by. Like for example, if you have three job offers, go for
| the one that allows you to build something new, rather than the
| one where your task is to manage a legacy product. Or for
| example, let's say you move to a new city and you are a bit
| disappointed with the activities that are available for your
| kids. You can either try to convince your kids to attend the
| available activities or you can try to organize a new after
| school club.
| bloomingeek wrote:
| What to Do- besides the help others and care of the world, plan
| for your future retirement, most don't. Seek education by reading
| as much as you can. Stay interested in your family. Desperately
| seek out beauty. Cultivate your sense of humor, even if it's a
| little snarky. Be who you want to be, as long as it won't hurt
| anyone, including yourself. (I'm afraid too many of us are afraid
| to stand out today, group mentality, on the whole, is toxic and
| can lead to "us vs them" stupidity.)
|
| What not to do (just as important)- Suck. Be nosy, passive
| aggressive, judgmental or hateful. Allow yourself to be duped
| because you're to lazy to seek out information.
| pugio wrote:
| (No implied critique of the actual essay) but when I saw that
| title from PG, I was really hoping it would address the 2025
| question "What should one do _now_? "
|
| At a time when it seems like so many pursuits or activities or
| things to make are overshadowed by " but won't there be a model
| in the next 6 months that can just do this itself?", not to
| mention all the other present world uncertainties...
|
| Well, it would be nice to hear more thought as to how to focus
| one's energies.
|
| (I have my own thoughts on this of course, but what I'm really
| advocating / hoping for is more strong takes on the question.)
| jstanley wrote:
| > "but won't there be a model in the next 6 months that can
| just do this itself?"
|
| Then you've got 6 months to cement your place in history as one
| of the last humans ever to have accomplished that thing before
| AI could do it. Hurry!
|
| (More generally, even if you don't care about AI: if you think
| you might want to do something, then depending on your age
| you've got maybe 50 years to do it before you've squandered
| your opportunity. Hurry!)
| sidcool wrote:
| Glad this has been unflagged. It's a boring essay, with nothing
| of substance said, but that doesn't make it worth flagging.
| FloorEgg wrote:
| I've found many of pg's essays very illuminating, but a few of
| the more recent ones seem less well thought out. Maybe I've just
| learned a lot over the last decade and it's me who has changed,
| or maybe his process has changed.
|
| The first thought I had after reading the thesis of the essay is
| that some people don't make new things but instead maintain
| important things. I'm more of a builder and if wager pg considers
| himself one, and I assume the majority of authentic HN users are
| builders. However I suspect the majority of people are
| maintainers.
|
| Nurses, electricians, emergency dispatchers, firefighters,
| mechanics, etc.
|
| We all depend on many complex systems working in order for our
| lives to not fall apart. Our homes, electricity, running water,
| soap manufacturing, etc. Choosing to be someone who makes sure
| these systems keep working is a good thing to do and deserves
| respect and appreciation. Someday AI may do all this stuff, but
| someday AI may build all the new things too...
|
| So my response to this specific essay: PG, your answer is
| incomplete and biased towards your own values. ikigai does a
| better job of answering this question already, why not build on
| it? Also thanks for your writing, don't stop.
|
| My biased answer to the question: - do lots of different things
| and stay curious, and with enough time, effort and luck you will
| find something you're good at, enjoy, the world wants, and will
| reward you with all the resources you need and then some. Just
| keep doing different things and being curious until you get
| there.
|
| One last thought: Is PG publishing less robust essays in hopes
| that people will be more compelled to comment and discuss them,
| bringing together the best ideas on the topic? Something like
| "the best way to get a question answered on the internet is to
| post the wrong answer" or however that goes...
| pedalpete wrote:
| I had completely the same thought. No everyone is a creator,
| and we don't want to bias the world into everyone being a
| creator, or a scientist, or an engineer.
|
| Today, I feel we have far too much of a focus on "business" and
| all my nieces and nephew are studying some sort of business
| focus in their university degrees. I feel it such a waste. If
| everyone in the world learns to only make businesses (ignoring
| that a degree is not required for that), who is going to build.
| If everyone becomes a maker, who is going to support all the
| non-maker roles.
|
| There are many people for whom their job is not their craft.
| They're focus - much as PGs now is, is the raising of their
| family, guiding their children to become good people, showing
| love, etc etc.
|
| Some may argue this is "making", but that's maybe a different
| argument.
|
| Your last thought is an interesting one, I hadn't heard the
| quote before.
| bob1029 wrote:
| > On the other hand, if you make something amazing, you'll often
| be helping people or the world even if you didn't mean to. Newton
| was driven by curiosity and ambition, not by any practical effect
| his work might have, and yet the practical effect of his work has
| been enormous. And this seems the rule rather than the exception.
| So if you think you can make something amazing, you should
| probably just go ahead and do it.
|
| I dislike the way this is framed and I think the rule/exception
| are inverted. Certainly, building the jet engine or
| microprocessor is a big uplift on all boats, but the chances you
| pull one of these out of the hat are pretty low.
|
| I spent a good chunk of my career attempting to build things that
| _I_ thought were amazing. It took a lot of drama and
| disappointment to discover that helping other people means
| meeting them where they are at right now, not where I want them
| to be.
| geenat wrote:
| I realize it's PG, but sounds AI written at this point.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-30 23:00 UTC)