When AI writes nonsensical code, it's a problem, but not a huge one. But when ChatGPT hallucinates while giving you legal/medical advice, there are tangible, severe consequences.
Unless there's going to be a huge reduction in hallucinations, I absolutely don't see LLMs replacing doctors or lawyers.
I think the authors of this article probably sought to highlight the fact that AI is now being used in medical research, rather than credit it with all the work (see "helps unravel" as opposed to "unravels").
For a community that prides itself on critical thinking, I'm always surprised to see HN lap this sort of pseudoscientific witch-doctor stuff up.
This poorly-controlled, N=1 experiment tells you nothing, not even about the author.
There's absolutely no reason to consider these novice self-experiments when professional scientific experiments are available (unless you're hunting for a specific result).
The author directly quoted the European Food Safety Authority, who found the same thing he did. There's a rich history of self-experimentation in medicine and nutrition, I don't think you need to be so negative.
My point was that no data gleaned from this experiment would've been meaningful, regardless of the result, because it was not conducted very rigourously.and on a sufficiently large scale.
People invented and discovered remarkable things before modern statistics and RCTs (work on puerperal fever, antisepsis and germ theory stand out for me). Humans can make surprising progress with only small scale experimentation and observation.
I prefer the results of large studies. I think modern methods are better than methods from the Scientific Revolution. But people can't always afford to wait a decade or two for solidly replicated results.
Uh, I think the article itself is fine. Not the most rigorous science, but not too bad for an amateur.
But the comments on HN, on the other hand... Every single post about medicine or disease is full of anecdote upon anecdote and pseudoscience. It's really hard to tell the difference between HN and Reddit in this regard.
The most insane part is that people here are so eager to jump on the train and recommend random treatments to others when they've only vaguely described their problem. I never understand this.
Oh come on! Studies about supplements over time are almost always "poorly controlled" because you have to ask people to do something while living their lives.
Also, N=1 experiments can absolutely be interesting and give us ideas for further study, even if they don't say anything about a population.
There's no recipe for happiness that primarily involves looking in the other guy's bowl. Even if you have everything to eat, you will still need unhappy if he has more.
No wonder you guys constantly post about unhappiness. You are obsessed with keeping up with the Joneses.
Much more joy if you instead care only about absolute living standards. My life has improved a lot and if Jeff Bezos appears before me and will make me 10x as wealthy if he is 100x I will gladly choose that.
We live as long as kings, with greater variety of food and drink, greater variety of entertainment, and big comfortable houses. I'd take this trade 10/10 times.
> Even if you have everything to eat, you will still need unhappy if he has more.
Yes if the demands on our personal resources (inc hours, energy, cognition) far outstrip our quality of life gains.
Me (gen x) vs my parents (silent gen): Parenting time went from a few hours per week to 24/7 adulting while kids growth resources (free range+adult free) was nearly eradicated.
My parents had tons of leisure time. I had none.
Mundane activities are unimaginably complicated now - needs that once had a couple of factors to consider now has dozens of compounding factors, each with their own subgroups to work through.
Consumer choices are flooded with bad options; long research is needed to avoid the never-ending line of traps.
> We live as long as kings, with greater variety of food and drink, greater variety of entertainment, and big comfortable houses.
What's left out of the "Live Better Than Kings" spiel is that gains turn into mandates (electricity, internet). They're required to meet basic needs like housing and not having kids taken away.
> I'd take this trade 10/10 times.
Draw up the entire list of factors that a poor American has to work through. Drop a king into that life for a month and have them report back.
It's not Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk who are making it impossible for your kids to be free-range. That's your fellow man. In fact, in a world of much greater inequality where your peers are not consulted about how children should be parented, your kids could be as free-range as they wanted. Jeff Bezos, in particular, is famous for letting his children risk physical damage if it means they can grow up resourceful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CmyV5Ghxeg
You can also have lots of leisure time. That's a choice. I do.
You could drop me into the life of a poor American, and a month later I wouldn't be one. I know that's true because I came to San Francisco with nothing in my bank account and a $10/day bed-on-a-couch paid for for 2 weeks.
At first glance, this declaration seems ignorant. You plainly lack the details of my parenting years and they are fully required to make that judgment.
In context, it looks like hubris.
But then again you implicitly validated my claims (24/7 adulting due to free range loss); you reassigned the cause of kids adult-free time.
With acceptance of the demands on modern parents' time, your declaration appears to be self-contradictory.
> You could drop me into the life of a poor American, and a month later I wouldn't be one.
This bit seems to confirm my hubris suspicions and I'm a bit divided on which way to respond. I could be less judgy, given my own years of low-wisdom confidence or I could jump right into exampling ignorance that leads to poor assumptions about fortune and poverty.
In the interest of time, I'll roll it all together.
Below is what actual lives look like.
I'll presume you're above average at opportunity farming and pulling rabbits from hats. I'll further assume your desire to excel includes being a high quality parent and spouse.
You are now married and you have children in lower+upper grades. How many children you have is tied to your confidence in providing for them.
Your spouse is a few years into the medical condition that converted her from supportive parent to +3 children in time, +many children in expenses - which are eating thru your single-income-savings faster than you can add to them.
You keep switching employers because they unexpectedly go under (exec scandal), are bought out+resized or are moved overseas. Or you are self-employed and your product/service keeps not landing where it is clearly needed.
Nevertheless you are confident that your will+skill is enough to see you through. You know your efforts will eventually yield result. Those critical uncontrollable factors (~luck) will eventually turn in your favor!
In the mean time your owned home has succumbed to an event (radon/extreme weather/sinkhole/whatever) and isn't habitable so you are forced to take on a 2nd housing expense while the insurance begins an ordeal that will take a decade to resolve.
Once you+wife+kids are relocated, your wife's medical insurance company pulls out of the market, mid-treatment. You are left scrambling to match a new provider to the full suite of options she needs.
This is when you develop Menieres disease. The tinnitus is annoying but the recurring vertigo takes you out of play for a day at a time. It's a permanent addition to your life. Your employer is understanding - at first.
Parenting during vertigo attacks is tough. Doubly so, given that your own parents died before you married. And since your job took you away from your one functional sibling, you don't have a lot of support.
Your kids still need to be transported to their before-school private classes, to their schools, home from schools, to their after school activities and to the other events that are a poor (but best available) substitute for their eradicated free range/time. They need help with homework. They need routine medical visits and not so routine visits for your oldest who has an ongoing condition of their own.
FF to 20y later and your luck hasn't turned yet. At least not nearly enough for you to get a real footing. You are poor. You're over 50 in tech so good luck finding employment even without all the baggage.
Throughout the 20ys you had a daily choice to care for your family at the level they need or invest time in trying to craft opportunities that would fit your medically-adjusted lifestyle.
Over that 20ys, you more+more opted to not neglect your family's needs. You reduced your opportunity-gardening to being opportunity-aware. You saw some but they required an amount of time that was impossible to budget properly. Or at least that became clear after you jumped into them for a while.
> You can also have lots of leisure time. That's a choice. I do.
Life can and does take that choice away. It's a pure spin of the wheel whether your number is the one that comes up.
You have created for yourself a prison and you think it inevitable that everyone else will do the same. None of what you're describing is normative. And yes, some people will have outlier bad luck. That's life and it sucks for them, but diseases that have an 0.2% prevalence are rare. There's no reason to reroute all of society to cover Meniere's.
> And yes, some people will have outlier bad luck. That's life and it sucks for them, but diseases that have an 0.2% prevalence are rare. There's no reason to reroute all of society to cover Meniere's.
Meniere's is a placeholder illness; it was there to help frame the scenario. It is curious that you didn't understand that.
But okay. If it helps make the lives of others easier to understand, then please choose one of the other thousands of life-altering illnesses. How about Lupus? Or Trigeminal Neuralgia, Ataxia, Fibromyalgia, Gaucher's disease, schizophrenia, Guillain–Barré syndrome, Parkinson's, Lyme's disease - any debilitating illness you want.
Because that's what happens to people. Not all but certainly not a tiny minority.
Some people receive few enough challenges that their A-Game + luck is enough to secure a stable life. The countless others work with what they have and make the best that can be made from that.
No one, anywhere has a choice of whether or not the uncontrollable challenges of life will exceed their very best.
Given that I worked with Jeff Bezos at the beginning of amzn, and made roughly $1M before I was 33 as a result, I'm hardly in the "obsessed about keeping up with the Joneses" group: I was the Joneses.
That doesn't stop me from saying that the distribution of wealth within the US economy is immoral, and detrimental to our politics, our health, our environment and more. And it doesn't stop other people from saying so either:
Those folks are hardly obsessed with keeping up with anyone.
I'm glad that your life has "improved a lot". But that's not a reason to give up on fairness, decency and even just plain old self-interest. It's a better society for everyone if there's less inequality, even those at the top.
Keeping up with the Joneses isn't about the sum of money, which by that age is trivial in the Bay Area. It's about the constant attitude of one's unhappiness stemming deeply from a sense that others are doing better than oneself. Fairness is a concept with diverse meanings: for some it means equality and for others it means proportionality. The fact that you have not equalized your wealth to the global median by transferring fractions to those lower than you proves that you do not believe in equality and retain some concept of proportionality.
It's unsurprising that one conveniently draws the line at one's own wealth as decent and fair but it should also be unsurprising when others do the same with their own larger amounts.
The average Indian (the modal nationality in the world), as an example, must work 200 years to gain the wealth you did at the age of 33. Show us your commitment to fairness and decency. I am curious to see you achieve parity with him.
Of course, I like that you did that. But it's not near fair enough considering people are starving. Bezos has given billions to charity. Will that do? Clearly not. So what you have done cannot suffice either.
I'm a believer in progressive taxation, and I think the principle applies here too. That principle is that the "burden" of taxation should be about the same for everyone, and in turn relies on the concept of the marginal value of money: for someone who earns 10k/yr, an extra 1k is a gigantic gain (or loss), but for someone who earns 10M/yr, an extra 1k is basically noise.
> During the most recent 22.5-year period from January 2000 to June 2022, the CPI for All Items increased by 74.4% and the chart displays the relative price increases over that time period for 14 selected consumer goods and services, and for average hourly wages. Seven of those goods and services have increased more than the average inflation rate of 74.4%, led by huge increases in hospital services (+220%), college tuition (+178%), and college textbooks (+162%), followed by increases in medical care services (+130%), child care (+115%), food and beverages (82%) and housing (80%). Average hourly earnings have also increased more than average inflation since January 2000 — by nearly 100% — indicating that hourly wages have increased 25% more over the last two decades that the average increase in consumer prices.
> The other seven price series have been flat or have declined since January 2000, led by TVs (-97%), toys (-72%), computer software (-70.5%), and cell phone service (-41%). The CPI series for new cars, household furnishings (furniture, appliances, window coverings, lamps, dishes, etc.), and clothing have remained relatively flat for the last 22 years while average consumer prices increased by 74.4% and wages by 99.6%, although all three series (TVs, toys, and software) have
> There's no recipe for happiness that primarily involves looking in the other guy's bowl. Even if you have everything to eat, you will still need unhappy if he has more.
What kind of happiness demands billions of dollars? These things go both ways.
> No wonder you guys constantly post about unhappiness. You are obsessed with keeping up with the Joneses.
As opposed to the ultrarich who have actively pursued this inequality? Curious, it consistently only goes one way in your mind.
> Much more joy if you instead care only about absolute living standards. My life has improved a lot and if Jeff Bezos appears before me and will make me 10x as wealthy if he is 100x I will gladly choose that.
Who said that Bezos could do that? Who said that wealth is created by the ultrarich? No one, but your mind seems to think so for some reason. Well, I’m sure you could find supposed evidence of it on X and the Washington Post, for whatever reason that might be.
> We live as long as kings, with greater variety of food and drink, greater variety of entertainment, and big comfortable houses. I'd take this trade 10/10 times.
So? This is a forum visited by high-earning US software engineers (that’s not me but a lot are). Not the kinds of people that the last four decades have hurt (the most). Which is why you get these surprise comments in these threads. “Woah guys, I’ve been reading these numbers lately and people are actually poor out there.”
No, I don’t think that it’s the Microsoft staff engineers that are personally mad about the state of things.
Quite the opposite, I've never yearned for more or even had a stable income. Yet I'm very happy.
Flat out concluding that everyone can make their own happiness by just being open to a system that constrains many others along the way, feels like regressing not progressing.
That 1970 middle-classer would be making around $450k in 2022 dollars, which sounds insane, but I also know my parents had normal jobs and were able to buy a house shortly after getting out of college.
Consider how big the difference is between each segment identified here. Realise that the upper income bracket itself could be broken down into three segments that would show an ever starker difference.
Unequal gains is the problem, and your intuition can help inform why: the 2023 dollar index used is based on what rate of inflation? CPI? RPI? Something else? Why is it that in 1970 a median income household could buy a home on a single income and raise a family (including sending kids to college), on a 2023-dollar income of $66k, but that's mostly not possible on $106k in actual 2023 for most households.
When you adjust for real buying power using a less favourable means of assessing inflation and taking into account housing costs more fully, I sense you'll find that the bottom two brackets are behind their 1970-adjusted counterparts, and the upper income bracket is significantly better off, especially if you then break that upper segment up a little into more categories.
And, without something happening to adjust this, the effect is going to just get worse and worse, and everyone knows it.
Well, housing is obvious. It's because most Americans are eager to have community (by which they mean suburban homes) and a short commute and a separation between commercial and residential spaces. This is a process that clearly yields outcomes that are not time-invariant. In the same sense that asking "why did people back then get to put a house down near Golden Gate Park and I don't?" is meaningless. Because eventually all the places near GGP have houses.
As Adam Driver points out in Ferrari, "two objects cannot occupy the same place at the same time". A view some might find counterintuitive.
It seems to be using the CPI. The basket of goods & services the CPI is referencing is determined by the extensive Consumer Expenditure Survey, and reflects to a fair degree the actual spending habits of Americans.
Obviously, if you give more weight to housing, you're going to get different results. But it would distort the actual change in expenditure.
What makes you believe that housing is not included? Consider using a search engine (Google is pretty good) and using keywords like "cpi shelter weight" or "cpi housing weight". The BLS has a page on the subject.
Sorry, I read the 2nd sentence as removing housing entirely, for some reason. I see that's not what they're saying, they're just talking about the relative weight of the thing.
My apologies for not knowing offhand everything that goes into the CPI, and not googling it for more context, I was just asking questions on the internet instead. I should've known better than to hope for learning something from my fellow humans.
Living standards have absolutely been rising for just about everyone, and continue to do so - for example in terms of income growth[0]. People in all income tiers have seen their incomes grow consistently, albeit not equally.
That's the crux. It's the same in almost all developed countries, we all have been getting more income, but most of us are not getting richer. The widening of the scissors is becoming more and more obvious, because even middle incomes suffered hard during the cost of living crisis, and continue to suffer.
This is mostly because of housing prices, not unequal distribution of income gains. If you gave everyone more money house prices would just go up more, because houses are being built far slower than the population is increasing.
Rising inequality increases asset prices as the wealthy look for more places to invest and extract rent. Gary's economics on YouTube explains this very well, with credentials.
The rich are demonstrably less discerning of every marginal dollar. They will pay more for the exact same asset than someone who is only middle class or lower. This means the rich own everything, and therefore just keep getting richer, because the US abandoned any form of redistribution.
For example, Kennebunkport is a very fucking wealthy town in Maine, including having a large vacation property for the Bush family. My father's entire business as a half retired contractor is predicated on rich, gay, techbros moving here from California and just throwing money at him until stuff is built. He can literally double a project price overnight, and they give him a bottle of $200 wine for it. The same is true of many businesses in the area.
This is one of the reasons nobody builds lower class housing. Profit is usually percentage based. Why would you build ten starter homes, and work your ass off pleasing a bunch of poor people who have to be careful with their money because even getting a loan nowadays is stupidly difficult, when you can just build a couple mcmansions for the same output effort, where a bunch of rich fucks will come in and buy it in cash, for above market price, no questions asked, so you don't even have to build it well because the rich people are buying vibes and dreams, not an actual house, and they will happily eat a much higher profit margin per product.
Large income disparity means that people stop serving the lower market, because Wall St won't invest in something that doesn't make line go up as much as just treating rich people as idiots that will pay stupid prices for things.
This "makes sense", or at least is obvious when you remember that at a certain point of wealth, you have more money than you know what to do with, and you still cannot buy even a single extra second of time with infinite money, so spending time being discerning with your purchases is explicitly a waste.
Being "gay" has nothing to do with it, you are simply exacerbating homophobia by such an ignorant comment. MOST rich tech bros are heterosexual, just SOME are gay.
The people with "too much" (everyone with more than the person saying the phrase "too much", presumably) aside, giving everyone more money will mean house prices will be bidded up and rents will rise, because there is an oversupply of people vs accommodation.
Think about it now, if you are bidding on a house and the other bidders are multi millionaires and billionaires, who do you think will win the bid? House prices are going up because those with a lot of cash are bidding them up. Many of those are being converted to rentals. This is why inequality matters.
Your link does not support your claim or in fact mention living standards at all. The fact, widely evident to every American not in the upper 20%, is that your paycheck is bigger, your house is worse, your food is worse, your healthcare is worse, your life expectancy is worse, your children’s education is worse, you have less free time, you can take fewer vacations, and you can buy less of what you want.
The US was #1 on the Human Development Index in 1995, and is now #20, sandwiched between Slovenia and the UAE.
What your link does show is widening income inequality.
According to Wiktionary, the standard of living is "the level of income, comforts and services available to an individual, community or society."
Levels of income have risen. Comforts and services available are not as simple to measure as income, but consumption (a decent proxy) is also trending upwards.
Your link shows inequality growing. There is income inequality and wealth inequality and both have been growing. Incomes rise while everything around you gets much more expensive, especially assets.
What chiefly worries me about my country is its unstable political situation, which is something most Western countries grapple with. Specifically, the precarious position of liberal democracy.
I don't think there are many people who are "pro-government waste". That would be a strange position to hold.
I do think that Elon Musk and DOGE are attempting to create a "with us or against us" binary narrative that leaves no room for even-handed nuance (not unlike Trump), in an effort to push an agenda that maybe doesn't have much to do with government efficiency (for example, MTG's clampdown on allegedly-liberal media [0]).
A much more obvious reason for the decline in smoking is the popularization of vapes. If you look at U.S. adults, you'll see that the decline in tobacco smoking is almost entirely made up for by the increase in vaping.
Technically, of course, vapes aren't cigarettes. But It's a bit misleading to say that smoking is unpopular, when it's just been replaced by a doppelganger. Especially since vapes are also deeply detrimental to health [1].
Unless there's going to be a huge reduction in hallucinations, I absolutely don't see LLMs replacing doctors or lawyers.
reply