GP mentions concurrent extreme stress and multiple variations of suicidal ideation, along with a prediction of the relief that would bring. Also, that the thoughts stopped once the stress did.
Not sure how they could describe suicidality more clearly. Speaking as someone who has also experienced it due to chronic health conditions that had gotten particularly bad for a while.
Thank you. Indeed, what I was suggesting, and the reason I posted my comment is to see if others have had similar experiences (which I assume could be true since there is a universality to how our brains respond to stress).
While mine were not health-related they (the stressors) were equally as bad and ran on for years; I am naturally an optimistic person and have no addictions, and I live healthily; even so, the only reason I didn't take my life was because my religion expressly forbids it (doomed to Eternity if).
It might start off with self-sabotage and end up in suicidal thoughts-- but also, maybe self-sabotage is yet another way to cope with extreme stress?
Given that Poe had chronic stressors (financial, for one), maybe his drinking and self-sabotage were the kind of responses his brain would generate. Even though he himself calls them "perversity", it doesn't negate the fact that he was experiencing severe brain damage due to the constant stress.
The TFA also elevates Freud into the discussion, but most if not all of Freudian ideas have been empirically refuted (thanks to the new advances).
Have seen the same thing happen to literary translator friends. Barring the very rare few who broke through to international fame via well-known literary award, the rest were largely sustaining themselves with more mundane business translations and that work is ended.
My father knows a guy that financed a Texas mansion, for $2MM, using the collateral from his decade of running a very large technical document translation service (US resident, using foreign workforce from his homeland), popular throughout the 2010s.
Was a beautiful house, which I briefly lived in during scatterbrained renovations (never met the new owner).
The bank forclosed on his house ~late2024/early2025... anybody can now just use an LLM to translate (in real time), on sub-$300 hardware (offline, open-source models run via e.g: Whisper[GUI]).
Bhartrhari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhart%E1%B9%9Bhari) is a pretty difficult philosopher who seems to be enjoying a revival now due to the ascendancy of AI LLMs and the question of whether they can be considered as having "consciousness".
His central idea (highly simplified) is that since Language is the only way we can name objects and discuss relations between them it is synonymous with "Reality" and "Consciousness". Sort of like how the properties of an object define that object (ADTs anyone?). One can imagine that the use of language by LLMs gives birth to appearance of both consciousness and reality as "emergent phenomena" in it. In his theory of "Sphota" he posits that "meaning bursts forth" (in consciousness) as an indivisible whole when a complete sentence/sentences is/are uttered (is this what happens when LLMs do reasoning and generate text within a "context window"?) Perhaps Epistemology and Ontology are just two sides of the same coin.
4) Sabda: A Study of Bhartrhari's Philosophy of Language by Tandra Patnaik. This is particularly scholarly with the author comparing western authors (like Frege and Wittgenstein) model of language with Bhartrhari - https://test.dkprintworld.com/product/sabda/
Excellent resources, thank you. Discussions of Sphotavāda are limited to the non-English Indosphere, largely, but the word itself is also used in high register Hindi to appreciate an unexpected but brilliant off-hand remark. Sort of like the English expression of calling something inspired; it both appreciates the speaker while taking away from their absolute agency.
I think one aspect of this relates to extrinsic vs intrinsic motivation.
I'm intrinsically motivated to work on my software projects because I want them to exist, and I enjoy exploring the problem space and working my way to a good solution. AI is great because it accelerates my abilities in this regard.
If I'd had only extrinsic motivations of credit and money, I can see that AI would affect them negatively. But I'd also have to believe that anyone else could AI-shortcut their way to whatever I make. I don't really believe that TBH. A real solution is extremely nuanced: it addresses many, many edge cases; it is performant in CPU and memory use; its UX steers the user away from incidental complications straight to the solution they're seeking. Being able to attend to all that doesn't seem everyone's cup of tea.
Finally, even if someone just copied whatever I had made, I would still have the satisfaction of knowing I was the original and they the copycat. That's good enough for me.
>Is it that I want it to be done? Would it have been done if I didn't? (Additionality)
>Is it that I want to have done it? Would I be happy if someone else did it? (credit)
>Is it that I want to be doing it? (achievement/process)
>I want to have a mix. I want to do some things for the experience and some things for the accomplishment. I want to do some easy things and some hard things. Some fun things and some unfun things. Some things just for me and some things for others.
I envy your enthusiasm. I sincerely enjoyed being proficient at something that was hard to replace, and still feel pride for it. There's still avenues like that, but they've grown thinner and it's not as one-sided. I'm still very happy to be in this field and keep toiling away, but with less joy.
I am intrinsically motivated, but AI doesn't just accelerate, it changes the end product when used in the way we are forced by economics to use it: Broadly, and supported by tests rather than by looking at each line. Something I made is explicitly different from something somebody (or something) else made over which I merely acted as a manager. For my personal experience, that's a different end product - I know the architecture of the thing, but the thing itself can not be internalized. It's less interesting, and, despite requiring less thinking, it's more stressful. And even regardless, reviewing code is simply less enjoyable/motivating than writing code.
I am also extrinsically motivated, as everybody is. The "if you don't like AI, then you only cared about the money" implication is nonsensical. I'm not going to starve or become homeless, but I absolutely could lose my current home. That would drive me to depression. I also don't want to have a job I don't enjoy at all. That would turn me into a different person. A miserable person. Switching to something I can learn to do within a short enough time frame that I'm not being financially irresponsible, that I enjoy at least a little, and that ultimately ends up paying at least 75% of what my previous job pays, is essentially not realistic.
I agree with your second paragraph. I'm not blindly pro-AI, merely trying to make the best of a bad situation. I didn't mean to imply "if you don't like AI, then you only cared about the money" at all.
I'm trying to say if you don't want to do the work because you think anyone at all can do the same job with AI, then 1) you're probably underestimating yourself, and 2) maybe you care less about the work than about being on the other side of a moat of knowledge and experience. That moat is still there, and a large part of it is caring about the work.
(Also I agree that AI changes the end product if one doesn't read the code, but I don't agree that we are all necessarily forced by the economics to operate it that way. I still plan how to implement features myself first, without AI; I still read every line of code; and I still sometimes step in and rewrite the AI patch myself. I'm lucky not to have a boss breathing down my neck, I realise; at least that's true for the moment while my savings haven't run out.)
> I'm intrinsically motivated to work on my software projects because I want them to exist
Isn't that extrinsic motivation? You're motivated by the desire to bring something outside of yourself into existence. The software project doesn't exist within you.
I think you may be applying extrinsic too broadly. I believe it's still intrinsic because it's about an internal feeling and desire rather than the threat of bad grades, punishment, or coercion from someone else. It's about the motivation, not the output.
> The problem with writing, and something I am noticing lately, is that AI robs your ability to create prose in your style. Even if you use AI just a little bit to touch up your writing - you start being influenced - And over time it adds up - you start writing like AI just a little bit every now and then. It seems to be robbing me of my ability to create original prose.
IMHO the fix is to read more books. Obviously I mean human-written books, and specifically with prose that you appreciate.
After a hiatus of a few years, when the internet had me, I've gone back to prioritising reading books once more. It's not only great for my writing, it's also just good for the soul. And it's the absolute antithesis of the infinite scroll.
"What you read and how deeply you read matters almost as much as how you love, work, exercise, vote, practice charity, strive for social justice, cultivate kindness and courtesy, worship if you are capable of worship. The mind is an activity and will decay into dark inertia if not sustained by the sustenance of reading.
The great poems, plays, novels, stories teach us how to go on living, even when submerged under forty fathoms of bother and distress. If you live ninety years you will be a battered survivor. Your own mistakes, accidents, failures at otherness beat you down. Rise up at dawn and read something that matters as soon as you can."
Not too sure - I never read that many books - and it wasnt an issue at all. I think writing more, without AI, is helping me get back to my pre-AI-stink self.
Sure, but if you’re influenced by how AI writes, it stands to reason that you’d be influenced by a great author too, and that may help improve your writing.
I may be misreading, but I think the earlier post was about the LLM being used to edit (clean up) their writing.
It's quite different than just reading a lot of text from other authors and passively absorbing diction and style. Instead, it means getting detailed reinforcement signals in the context of your own active writing effort.
This can start an ironic reinforcement learning pattern where the writer gets tuned to write in the LLM's "corrected" form. Imagine a traditional professional writer, in a long-term partnership with a particular copy editor who gates their output.
Unpopular because the difference between FSD and writing is obvious to more people than not, especially people who read for pleasure. Being a person with an actual POV matters more than having perfect grammar or a studied flair.
Surprised to find no mention of "load-bearing" and "gated" particularly for Claude.
In particular Opus 5 is scaling new heights of incomprehensibility with excessive metaphor-making, especially when it uses an existing word in the prompt or the code comments as a novel metaphor in an unrelated context.
Just tried this as part of an ask about chronic inflammation. What an enormous difference your tip makes in the reply style and structure - wow. And thank you.
Most of this piece reads like the Claude output I have to read after every prompt, cleaned up with an /elegant-writing skill or something. I'm so used to skimming text in this voice, it's hard to pay attention to this.
I honestly do not understand why people do this for writing that carries their signature, essentially. Do you want people to associate your name with skimmable fluff? We can talk to each other directly, please. The machine is helpful but it doesn't have to mediate every human interaction ever.
Not sure how they could describe suicidality more clearly. Speaking as someone who has also experienced it due to chronic health conditions that had gotten particularly bad for a while.