Doubtful. People seem to be moving in the opposite direction since they hate AI so much.

From what I've seen, it's just divisive and doesn't seem to follow the usual political lines either.

Grandiose language but it's not wrong. The short article was worth reading IMHO

I suspect many do, but you can grift a lot before that happens

> her colleagues used high-energy X-rays to create 3D scans of two female pelvises that had been donated through a body donor organ programme.

Would be really interesting to get a few dozen of these and map out the variability. Gotta start somewhere though

Considering the value and prominence of arxiv to the world, this seems low to me. Although more importantly the rest of the staff needs to be well paid too, and if that's the ceiling its a bit concerning. It's crazy to me that people thought this was too high.

I started working in AI/ML about ten years ago. Reasonably early. Today, professionally and financially I'm doing about as well as a typical programmer. I find the field interesting so I have no regrets but I tend to agree with OP.

I would love more granular data, like state or zip code. It would help settle a decade old (and zero stakes) dispute I have with a friend. I'm sure that's your top priority, so if you could get on that, that would be great

lol

I'm the same way but we're both posting on hacker news. Many people prefer phones

I've had the same thought. The only major difference that I can think of is the built-in camera making check deposits easier. It may also be that people were just generally using computers more and using the internet more over this same time period, although a lot is that because of smartphones

Hot take: being clueless is better than these essays make it out to be. The examples are all really socially annoying people (Michael, Dwight) but I've known some pretty nice and pleasant middle managers who had generally great lives. They probably could've gotten all of that with less work but perfectly hitting the Pareto frontier is quite difficult.

According to this theory, the Clueless are the ones who suffer the most.

They invest most, they care about made up goals nobody else cares about, they play by rules everyone else thinks are dumb, they feel loyal to a company that doesn't love them back, and because they are more invested in the company, they are the ones who feel the loss the most when the sociopaths pull the rug.

I think it's actually the Losers who have it better: they are simply not invested enough, they are replaceable but also find their place in other companies, and in any case, failure affects us-- I mean, them -- less simply because they are not invested as much and they never felt any loyalty.

"Loser" is a loaded term because it sounds like the cultural, lowercase loser ("so and so is such a loser!") but it actually means "loser in the game of maximum capitalist profit and power". But if you're not really playing that game, being a loser at it isn't so bad.

The Clueless is the person who actually believes his work makes a difference and wants to do a good job. Not necessarily a terrible way to live, although it should be acknowledged that the Loser frees up time and energy to devote to other things, notably family.

(According to the theory) it is a terrible way to live, because everything the Clueless believes is false.

The Clueless believe their work makes a difference, but it doesn't. They believe it matters they do a good job, but it doesn't truly matter except for the advancement and power plays of the Sociopaths. They believe themselves "company men", and are loyal to a company that despises them and sees them as completely expendable.

The Losers understand this, and therefore devote their energy to other things outside work, where they find meaning in life.

(Again, I understand this is what the theory states and doesn't necessarily reflect reality. But I do think there's a kernel of truth to it.)

You are assuming that there's something bad about everything you believe being false. There's a fair amount of evidence that it's a good thing. EG religious people being happier and living longer

Yeah perhaps a better term for Loser is Abstainer. Because the Sociopaths also can certainly lose at the game of maximum capitalist profit. Loser/Abstainer just chooses not to play the game.

The problem with these theories is that they fall apart as soon as you start adding or modifying the types. Because they aren't actually correct, just simple and flattering.

I think it'd be more accurate to say that in their neat essay form they are incorrect/incomplete, but that there's a kernel of truth to them.

Essays like this want to package an idea into a nice, easy to understand thing that has some punch to it. Reality is more complex.

Fully agreed. I think "Loser" is a misnomer. And indeed, going by the essay, the Sociopaths can also lose big... they are willing to risk it all for personal gain, but it can end very badly for them if they miss their window, their manipulations get exposed, or decide to do illegal things to get ahead (high profile cases in my mind: Enron, Epstein, etc).

The names come from a cartoon that predates Rao's essay. He simply reused them because they mostly work. Just like the Sociopaths are not all literal sociopaths, the Losers are not all literal losers.

Yes, I understand this. I was simply making this explicit, it was a good idea to clarify that neither Losers nor Sociopaths match the common definition of those terms.