The defeatist attitude in the reply’s to this comment are unreal. Try hard or don’t. It’s up to you. At least with the one way you might have a chance.
Acknowledging e.g. people who grow up in multilingual households usually have an easier time learning a new language than someone who didn't shouldn't just be about what decision an individual should make for themselves, it's about identifying what stimulates that kind of growth so we get more of that success overall. I.e. making a decision or not to go for the chance myself is a different topic than trying to find ways to increase the chances for everyone.
Economic growth is not a 0 sum game so why talk about the situations around it from only an individual gain perspective. If a lot of individuals are saying some situational factor makes the choice unreasonably hard then that's something worth focusing on rather than dismissing.
Acknowledging reality isn't defeatist. It's very likely that successful entrepreneurs statistically do come from richer families. We shouldn't ignore this fact because it's more fun and emotionally rewarding to us to pretend otherwise
Most attempts fail and if you get into debt you don’t get to try again.
I agree that it takes a special kind of person to try and try again, but it clearly is not for everyone.
A lot has to come together, you need to be alone, have a very supportive partner or be a sociopath (willing to drag your family down with you). You need to be in the right place (or have the means to move there). This usually works when you are young, so definitely having starting capital from somewhere works. This was much easier in the marking moments of technology where any simple tool or game could be transformed into cash. Nowadays you really need to luck out.
Europe has generally better safety net and much less entrepreneurship spirit for example. So it pushes both ways.
I guess one last thing is this weird thing in the US where investors somehow like people who previously failed. Like Elizabeth Holmes who reportedly went from prison right back into the game. With that environment of course it makes sense to just try again.
Find companies that make a lot of money and convince them to give you some of that money in exchange for your labor if you want the best risk/reward ratio.
I would much rather be in the position of an intern I mentored who at 22 made over $700K in gross income between cash and RSUs (that could easily be converted into cash unlike “equity” in private companies) their first four years out of college than some struggling founded trying to start yet another AI company so grateful they got $200k from YC while still eating beans and rice that they had to split among three founders.
You can choose to think that op meant only the most insanely rich billionaires. I thought they meant their actual experiences with peers. Cut out the outliers and be realistic and I think it’s easier to understand the point without the extremism. The range of what people consider success is quite large.
Yes, it's a bit forced trying to turn someone's anecdotes that spur some food for thought into some kind of a categoric stance.
They asked the parent who they were thinking of, a more recent example of an "up and coming" billionaire would be Palmer Luckey, whose life experience seems to be at least consistent with his stance against optionality.
Edit: Ref
"A lot of my peers in the tech industry do not share this philosophy … They’re always pursuing everything with optionality. ’Oh, I need to be able to raise money from anybody. I need to be able to sell my business in any way. I need to have liquidity in any way. I need to make sure that I’m not closing myself off to future romantic partners. I need to make sure I’ve got my options open. I need to make sure that I’m not going to buy a house and settle down in one place and lock myself down. Oh, having children. I don’t know. Maybe I’m not ready to commit to that path."
I posted some as a reply to one of your other posts.
Why do we need well-known, public examples? I think it would be absurd to assert that there are very few successful founders that don't come from wealthy families. (Just as it would be absurd to suggest there are few that do come from wealthy families.)
Do they actually pay less in taxes because of this? I’m not arguing. That is great and I would appreciate if you could provide a source for me to read.
We do not but there's a social consensus about the value people get from this taxation level. However the excess power price which is not a domestic supply/demand outcome is a lot harder to sell.
I used to think that therapists were ridiculous. But after having one for six or seven years now, I realize that it’s literally just someone you pay to help you be the happiest and best version of yourself. Maybe everyone doesn’t need that, but I don’t think anyone is inherently always the best version of themselves. What’s the point of not trying to be a little better?
I feel like the world would be a much better place if literally everyone did have a therapist. Having a neutral, trained professional you talk you for 45 minutes twice a month about things that are tough in your life is not something that should alarm people, but being vehemently against it honestly kind of is...
The main issue is that therapy is expensive, and it's very middle-class to have the money to afford one long-term like that. Working class people have had to suck it up, or (preferably) have a good support network themselves.
While I am inclined to agree that most people would benefit from having a professional to talk to, it'd need to be economically viable as well.
But we're seeing this happening in real time; on the one side there's lower cost online councelling available (but whether that's actually certified professionals is debatable), and on the other ChatGPT became the biggest and most popular therapist almost overnight. But again, not sure if it has the necessary certifications, I suppose it's believable enough. I also want to believe OpenAI and all the other AI suppliers have hired professionals to direct the "chatbot as therapist" AI persona, especially now that the lawsuits for people losing their sanity or life after talking to AI are gaining traction.
You are definitely right about the financial barriers. I’ve struggled to find one every time I have switched or lost a certain insurance coverage too so there is a shortage even if you can afford them.
I’m inclined to think chatGPT would probably be good enough for therapy basics and could help people that have never encountered them, but would probably become much worse after needing any specialized help. Online platforms like BetterHelp are complete trash and just make the therapist and the person feel hopeless.
I have been in therapy on and off through most of my life. There are parts of the process and the profession that are helpful. There are also parts that are paternalistic bordering on abusive. “Literally just someone you pay to the be happiest…” is a small part of the picture. I take issue with this view of therapy, and the idea that it is somehow a universal force for good that will benefit everyone.
I have met some pretty unhinged therapists - both as a client and socially. I won’t even go into the history of psychiatry and clinical care.
One of the questions I like to pose is, what are we doing as a society by sending so many people to therapy? What do these practices do at a large scale? And to all those who decry things like gun violence: if you think our current mental health system would somehow be able to address the larger ills of society if only they had more funding, I have some serious questions about your view of its overarching effectiveness, and the specific effects of these practices.
Oh I was oversimplifying for sure and like most things in life it is very dependent on who you are and what type of therapist you have(lcsw,psychiatrist,psychologist,practicing RN, etc), also just the views and opinions of the people involved will vary greatly on the outcome.
I’ve had plenty of bad experiences which exacerbated my hopelessness but overall I feel I’ve found help when I most needed it.
I think the introductory things in almost any form of therapy will help people, after that it gets much more complicated and it’s up to the individual to find something that fits or decide it’s not for them.
Do you mean therapy is designed to teach outcasts how to fit better into the machine? I would agree with that, and while I hate that it is partly true and reject anything like this for myself in general, individual happiness sometimes correlates with greasing your wheels to be a better subject.
I thought this would be inherent just on their training? There are many multitudes more Reddit posts than scientific papers or encyclopedia type sources. Although I suppose the latter have their own biases as well.
I'd expect LLMs' biases to originate from the companies' system prompts rather than the volume of training data that happens to align with those biases.
I would expect the opposite. Seems unlikely to me an ai company would be spending much time engineering system prompts that way except in the case of maybe Grok where Elon has a bone to pick with perceived bias.
If you ask a mainstream LLM to repeat a slur back to you, it will refuse to. This was determined by the AI company, not the content it was trained on. This should be incredibly obvious — and this extends to many other issues.
In fact, OpenAI has made deliberate changes to ChatGPT more recently that helps prevent people from finding themselves in negative spirals over mental health concerns, which many would agree is a good thing. [1]
Companies typically have community guidelines that often align politically in many ways, so it stands to reason AI companies are spending a fair bit of time tailoring AI responses according to their biases as well.
That seems like more like openAI playing whackamole with behaviors they don’t like or see as beneficial, simplifying but adding things to system prompts like “don’t ever say racial slurs or use offensive rhetoric, cut off conversations about mental health and refer to a professional” are certaintly things they do. But would you not think the vast meat of what you are getting is coming from training data and not the result of such sterring beyond a thin veneer ?
I find this interesting. I've always described things from the users point of view. Like the left side of a car, regardless of who is looking at it from what direction, is the driver side. To me, this would include a body.
When I was in Amsterdam I was with a group of acquaintances of a friend who lived there. One of them offered me an extra piece of pizza they had when I showed up. When the bill came, they asked me for the exact percentage of the bill that that piece of pizza cost. First time experiencing something like that.
I also offered to buy several people a drink while I was there. This was received every time with suspicion and I was treated as if I was trying to gain something transactional besides a simple friendship in the moment. It was an interesting part of that society to experience.
Nordic social norms like this get made fun of all the time by westerners and southern Europeans. A lot of people will take the crappy socioeconomic situations of non Nordic countries just so that they can have warm relations with their families and a culture that doesn’t hate loud noises.
reply