I accept that AI-mediated productivity might not be what we expect to be.
But really, are CEO's the best people to assess productivity? What do they _actually_ use to measure it? Annual reviews? GTFO. Perhaps more importantly, it's not like anything a C-level says can ever be taken at face value when it involved their own business.
The latest company I worked in had your typical fee-earners and fee-burners categories of employees.
The fee-earners had KPIs tied to the sales pipeline, from leads to contracts to work completed on fixed contracts or hours billed on variable-rate contracts. It's relatively easy to measure improvements here. Though it's harder to distill the causes of that and tie it to LLMs.
The fee-burners like in IT, legal, compliance, marketing, finance, typically had KPIs tied to the department objectives. This stuff is a LOT more subjective and a lot more prone to manipulation (goodhart's law). But if you spend 60 hours a week on work in such a department, you tend to have a pretty good idea if things are speeding up or not at all. In a department I was involved in there was a lot of KYC that involved reviewing 300+ pages per case, we tracked case workload per person per day, as well as success rates (percentage of case reviews completed correctly), and could see meaningful changes one could attribute to LLM use.
Agreed though that I'm more interested in a few case studies in detail to understand how they actually measured productivity.
Most CEOs of large firms arent all that involved in the details, so theres no way they can have a true and proper view of the day-to-day operations on the ground level.
Steve Jobs is the only CEO of a large firm that I can re-call that always remained intimately involved.
The practice of using a physical notebook, IMHO, is steadily fading into quaint retro irrelevance for most people in most roles.
I have seen absolutely meticulous lab notebooks before. Each page numbered and dated, cut-outs of graphs taped into the pages, that classy light-green grid-paper. Near flawless penmanship in black ink, with the rare correction crossed out, dated and initialed. Bibliographic references following a strict format in handwriting. Footnotes, FFS.
I've tried, in grad school, 20 years ago to get into the practice. Mine sucked. Non-stop, distracting corrections, maybe a dozen or more per page. Whole swathes of the notebook consisting of deep useless rabbit holes that started with a mis-conception or brain-fart, wasting space, making it a chore to even review what I was doing. I don't think of myself as particularly talented (maybe somewhat better than a fraud). But there are lots of folks like me and much smarter that have the same experience with paper notebooks.
I think really useful notebooks are something that is learned through practice, focus, and mentorship. But there are tools that are much easier to use these days. Notebook-based stuff like jupyter. I like quarto with ipynb myself (though it's not without occasionally infuriating problems).
>> Let the physicists build the damn thing and future society will be better off for sure.
> Absolutely not.
And what do YOU mean, "absolutely not"? You have no more say in what happens than anyone else unless you're high level politician, who would still be beholden to their constituents anyway.
And yet big science, like particle accelerators, STILL gets funding. There's plenty to go around. Sure, every once in a while a political imperative will "pull the plug" on something deemed wasteful or too expensive and maybe sometimes that's right. But we STILL have particle physics, we STILL send out pure science space missions, there are STILL mathematicians and theorists who are paid for their whole careers to study subject matter that has no remotely practical applications.
Not everything must have a straight-line monetary ROI.
You might be right, but until you get a professional diagnosis you can't really be sure. Hacker-news will disagree but it is impossible to be objective about your own mental health. The good news is that if you do have adult ADHD, it is treatable (much more so than other conditions like depression).
Some people might try to spin it as something cool, but that last "d" stands for disorder. It's a disorder and NOT a "founder thing", regardless of what Paul Graham thinks. ADHD can do enormous damage to your life, relationships, and professional development.
Given that HHS is now run by a nutcase, it’s surprisingly not a completely insane dietary recommendation. I think a sensible person would do OK following those general guidelines.
That said, if you don’t like it, disregard it. No one is forcing you. I think it has too much emphasis on protein but that’s just me.
These guidelines theoretically could influence school lunches. Will it make them worse or better or change nothing? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’ve used hardware store “mold kits” where you tack some tape onto a surface and then send it to a service that will analyze it for you. My understanding is that these services simply look at the tape through a microscope, or apply it to a growth media that’s been prepped to “prefer” the specific types of fungus they’re looking for.
One would think there are PCR-based services that do this? That would be the gold standard for this stuff, and it could easily scale enough to become economical, but to my knowledge there are no commercial mold testers that do this.
OK, but isn’t the key take-away from the Challenger disaster all about the consequence of organizational dysfunction and fear of speaking up?
It wasn’t really a “design flaw” or “weak link” as much as it was management disregarding the warnings of engineering staff. The cold temperature limitation was known in advance by the Morton Thiokol engineers but their management refused to relay the warnings of engineering to NASA and NASA was under pressure to fly. IMHO this was a failure of multiple, mostly organizational, systems rather than “one weak link”.
Likely yes, because NASA and other agencies were able to portray the incident as an O-ring failure. It was in fact just that management was indifferent to the risk to the astronauts on board. The only individual who accurately reported on the disaster was Feynman.
The o-ring was still the weak link, a small part that decision makers assumed was insignificant whose failure caused the complete destruction of a massive system and tragic deaths. The organizational failures are just why the weak link wasn't addressed. We can say with hindsight that things should have been better communicated and the warnings should have been heeded, but the fact is they were dealing with a complex system where the risk was sufficiently non-obvious that they could disregard the warnings.
> ...it’s a tool for him and his cronies to make dodgy money?
It's a vehicle to sell "access". The greed is only half of it.
The worst part is that they're selling access to foreign interests who pay them off. These people can't exactly show up with bags of gold to bribe King Sh*t Gibbon (yet), crypto is the next best thing.
It is ironic that the essay comes from UPenn in Philadelphia.
Many of you may find it shocking or unbelievable, but literacy is slipping in many parts of the US (like Philadelphia). The number of functionally illiterate people is increasing, schools are failing to educate students for a constellation of reasons.
The reality is that we instead suffer from a "tyranny" of illiteracy. I think those folks in their ivory towers, like upenn, should help to address that before starting the pearl-clutching about what has been lost because of widespread literacy.
Basically, people in Philadelphia are not allowed to write about topics that interest them, in this case literacy, oral tradition and history unless they all peraonally become elementary school teachers?
No talking about Homer or territorial expansion of 1880 for them anymore.
But really, are CEO's the best people to assess productivity? What do they _actually_ use to measure it? Annual reviews? GTFO. Perhaps more importantly, it's not like anything a C-level says can ever be taken at face value when it involved their own business.
reply