Someone turned me onto this podcast several months ago and, after a few episodes, my takeaway was they seem to be against every book they review. I couldn't find a single book they actually liked.
> This I've read is made worse because as it has grown in features and capabilities in the 25+ years it has been available the interface has become kind of disjoint.
It's impossible to exaggerate how true this is. I often say "BiaB is the best worst software - or should that be 'worst best software'? - I've ever used." A toolbar that crams dozens of tiny icons, almost no visual hierarchy, dated visual style, waaaay too many dialogs (dialogs within dialogs!), zero discoverability, inconsistent labeling, basic features missing...I could go on. To add insult to injury, I'm using the Mac version and it looks/feels like a port, not a native app.
I like the direction Apple is taking with their digital audio workstation, Logic Pro X. While not overtly AI, they've been introducing intelligent musical features starting with their Drummer feature several years before AI became commonplace.
My partner and I have been through this cycle. Something happens, she interprets it a certain, very specific, way and then has an adverse emotional reaction.
In the early days of our relationship I would try to explain to her why her emotion doesn't 'make sense'. That just made things worse. Much worse. When she helped me understand that she needed me to validate that what she was feeling was legitimate - based on her interpretation of the events - she was able to let go and consider other interpretations.
Note that this "letting go" almost never happened in the moment, but only after the emotions abated and she had time to process the entire situation. We're talking hours, not minutes.
I picked up a collection of several hundred of his 4-part chorales. I like to flip through the pages and pick one seemingly at random and play it. While some hit me harder than others, nearly all of them express this "simplicity to depth" ratio.
The important terms here are "provision" and "without appropriate involvement by a licensed professional".
Both of these, separately and taken together, indicate that the terms apply to how the output of ChatGPT is used, not a change to its output altogether.
What serendipity! The latest episode of "Philosophize This!" is titled "The Philosophy of Zen Buddhism - Byung Chul Han".[0] I'd never heard of him before. Apparently his book "The Burnout Society" is recommended reading.
I agree that the OP seemed to miss who the article is targeted at (managers, leaders). However I think this is still very good advice for an IC, even someone straight out of school.
Does it mean they start taking on projects that don't align with their role? Probably not.[0] What it does do is enable them to get a fresh perspective on the org, team and work and perhaps contribute ideas in group settings/meetings/social situations that others may not have considered, by virtue of not having executed the algorithm in the article.
If nothing else it gives one a structured way to gain valuable information about the org and the work, regardless of where you sit in the 'food chain'. It's also a great way to build a network.
[0]Often companies allow for 'stretch' time where ICs can take on side projects. Running this algorithm could be a great way to surface ideas for those kinds of projects.
A year or so ago I read "The World Beyond Your Head"[0] which also tackles the questions "Where do we direct our attention and why?" Ever since then I've become acutely aware of where I choose to focus my concentration and why.
It's exceedingly difficult to take charge of one's moment-to-moment experience of the world, but in those rare instances when I achieve it it's very rewarding.
Well put. Serendipitously, Dan Dennett and Sam Harris just discussed this last week and released the recording of their conversation[0].
The conversation was interesting and disappointing.
Harris argues that the commonly-held notion of 'free will' is nonsensical. Dennett doesn't disagree but worries that people may construe this to mean that 'all bets are off' and the world will descend into chaos. Harris attempts to explain why this would not be the case; that we'd still have good reasons to imprison people who want to do harm. Dennett agrees but then restates the same worry differently. They never manage to get past this.