5 ms·

> I think it's a bit reductive to flatten the conversation so much. Is that because I added a TL;DR line, or my entire post? > I shouldn't feel ashamed for ta

> I think it's a bit reductive to flatten the conversation so much. Is that because I added a TL;DR line, or my entire post? > I shouldn't feel ashamed for taking some interest and studying machine learning. I shouldn't feel ashamed for having some degree of cautious optimism - the kind that sees a slightly better world, and not dollar signs. And yet. I agree with this in general. I didn't mean to criticize having interest in it. > And the degree of how emotionally charged it is does lead me to think that there's a degree of further discontent Do you mean the discontent outside the C-suite? If so, yes, I agree with that too. But if we start discussing that, we'll be discussing the larger context of economic policy, what it means to be human, what art is, etc.

tavavex 2y ago
> Is that because I added a TL;DR line, or my entire post? The TL;DR was a fine summary of the post, I was talking about the whole of it. Though, now that I re-read it, I see that you were cautious to not make complete generalizations - so my reply was more of a knee-jerk reaction to the implication that most people who oppose the author's style are just "temporarily embarrassed C-suites", unlike the sane people who didn't feel uncomfortable about it. > I didn't mean to criticize having interest in it. I don't think you personally did - I was talking about the original post there, not about yours. The sentiment in many communities now is that machine learning itself (or generative AI specifically) is an overhyped, useless well that's basically run dry - and there's no doubt that the dislike of financial grifters is what started their disdain for the whole field. > Do you mean the discontent outside the C-suite? Yes.