Spoilers, but the excerpt posted here [0] of Aenea was one of my favorite scenes from Hyperion Cantos. "Choose again" as a gentle reminder to reevaluate our beliefs and structures, and to really choose, not just go along with whatever. You can always choose again.
Oh man ... it's been years since I read this, but it all came flooding back reading that post. Brilliant. And interestingly, "Choose again" is shockingly similar to Steve Job's "Don't be trapped by dogma," philosophy.
I read The Buddha: Biography of a Myth, by Donald S. Lopez after hearing him on Conversations With Tyler. That's probably my top non-fiction book this year. Key takeaway was that the history of Buddhism is incredibly deep. Two highlights: First, the Buddha said that minor rules could be disregarded after his passing, but the person that was informed of this forgot to ask for clarification of what rules were minor, so there's debate over which rules must be followed. Second, the Buddha left us because nobody asked him to stay. This second point makes me reflect on the importance of reminding people that they are valued.
I also read The Red Book, Reader's Edition, by Carl Jung. I'm still processing that one. The artwork in the book is breathtaking and I strongly suggest looking it up even if you only look at the art. Narratively, it feels a bit like rambling at times. I'd previously read Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, and Aion, and felt like those had a bit more intelligible substance. The first few chapters of Aion are excellent, but then Jung just goes on for like a dozen chapters about fish symbolism which completely lost me.
I also read a few other books on occult and esoteric topics, but my thoughts on those books are more complex than what I'm willing to type out on mobile. Key takeaway from a book on Wiccan Witchcraft was that they also believe in a system of reincarnation. I'm interested in reading through some of the core texts of Chinese Mythology at some point, but there aren't any good audiobook recordings for some of them.
I'm sad to say that I made very little progress in getting through proper college level textbooks, but I'm working through Molecular Biology of the Cell.
I want to build the AGI god in order to bring abundance, wealth, and prosperity to all of humanity.
Aside from that, I'd like to shore up the cracks or gaps in my mathematical foundations, and learn more advanced mathematics.
I'm still really confused about thermodynamics so that's another topic that I would like to revisit. I've never neen able to convince myself that our current understanding is correct.
Honestly, I want to read and study more college level textbooks about every single subject.
> I want to build the AGI god in order to bring abundance, wealth, and prosperity to all of humanity.
What's the plan to make sure that progress in AI leads to predominantly positive outcomes for people? All the people I've asked who work at the major AI companies haven't given an answer, except to say that they don't study safety or societal impacts, but know others who do.
If you don't have an answer, can I humbly suggest that you add finding one to your list?
It cannot be understated how much of a boon AI-assisted programming has been for getting stuff up and running. Once you get past the initial hurdle of setting up an environment along with any boilerplate, you can actually start running code and iterating in order to figure out how something works.
Cognitive bandwidth is limited, and if you need to fully understand and get through 10 different errors before anything works, that's a massive barrier to entry. If you're going to be using those tools professionally then eventually you'll want to learn more about how they work, but frontloading a bunch of adjacent tooling knowledge is the quickest way to kill someone's interest.
The standard choice isn't usually between a high-quality project and slopware, it's between slopware or nothing at all.
Most people will barely read through a couple basics, so it can be a bit of a though sell to start recommending more niche stories. And part of the reason that some of these books are so successful is that they tend to have pretty widespread appeal, while more niche books will be more divisive and less likely to get recommended broadly.
If you're so well-read why don't you grace us with some of your non-mainstream S-tier recommendations?
From this list, one of the books that I recommend to everyone is Piranesi, which is fairly mainstream, and if they want to explore Russian magical realism then Vita Nostra. Unsong is another favorite. In general I love to explore magic systems that experiment with breaking a system, or stories that explore how different rules might interact within a system.
I think people sometimes underestimate the value of lighter more fun reads, like cultivation stories. The best western adaptation of this style of novel is probably the Cradle series, by Will Wight. Even though the stories tend to be fairly light, they're quite enjoyable for exploring new modes of thinking. For example, we can analyze the interactions of energy as an abstract / symbolic form, and how it influences human behavior; which is an abstract / symbolic application of the cultivation lens over reality. To give an easier to understand example: Feng Shui isn't real but it's true, in the sense that the way in which we organize furniture within a space determines how people navigate it and how they interact. And why might this be useful? Well, sometimes we fail to see the full picture when using a single lens, and different lens might let us see things in a new light.
I've read some terribly generic web novel slop and gotten fairly unique and interesting perspectives from them, but most people aren't good enough readers to enjoy bad books, so they can only read and enjoy good books.
I was recently reading through Ursula K. Le Guin's The Language of the Night: Essays on Fantasy and Science Fiction, and she has so many great quotes that are directly relevant to this situation.
Here's a shorter one:
> “The use of imaginative fiction is to deepen your understanding of your world, and your fellow men, and your own feelings, and your destiny.”
And a longer one:
> “We read books to find out who we are. What other people, real or imaginary, do and think and feel – or have done and thought and felt; or might do and think and feel – is an essential guide to our understanding of what we ourselves are and may become… A person who had never listened to nor read a tale or myth or parable or story, would remain ignorant of his own emotional and spiritual heights and depths, would not know quite fully what it is to be human. For the story – from Rumpelstiltskin to War and Peace – is one of the basic tools invented by the mind of man, for the purpose of gaining understanding. There have been great societies that did not use the wheel, but there have been no societies that did not tell stories.”
Engaging with fantasy and scifi helps us understand ourselves and the world around us. It helps find what truly moves and inspires us. It teaches us to dream of a different, better world.
What Le Guin is expressing is a beautiful idea, but it is a false beauty. It feels like truth because it aligns with how narrative engages the human mind, not because it accurately explains what stories are or why they exist. The sense that fiction reveals destiny, inner depth, or essential humanity is an illusion created by evolved cognitive machinery, not evidence of genuine insight.
From an evolutionary and cognitive standpoint, imaginative fiction is not a privileged tool for understanding who we are. It is a byproduct of more basic adaptations. The human brain evolved as a prediction engine optimized for survival in social groups. Its primary function is to anticipate outcomes, model other agents, and reduce uncertainty well enough to reproduce. Narrative arises because the brain naturally organizes experience into causal sequences involving agents, not because stories convey deeper truths about the self.
Fiction works by hijacking the same neural systems used for social reasoning, memory, and planning. When reading a story, the mind runs simulations of social situations. This feels like insight, but feeling insight is not the same as acquiring accurate models of reality. Fantasy and science fiction are not special forms of wisdom. They are simply inputs that exaggerate certain variables, making simulations emotionally vivid rather than epistemically reliable.
Le Guin’s claim that someone without stories would be ignorant of their emotional or spiritual depths is not supported by biology. Emotions are not learned through narrative. They are innate regulatory systems shaped by natural selection. Fear, attachment, anger, desire, and joy exist prior to language and independently of story exposure. Stories can name, frame, or intensify these states, but they do not create or deepen them in any fundamental sense.
The universality of storytelling also does not imply that it is an adaptive route to understanding. Evolution does not favor truth or self knowledge. It favors fitness. Many of the most persistent stories humans tell are systematically false. Myths, religious narratives, romantic ideals, and national legends endure because they exploit cognitive biases like agency detection, pattern completion, and emotional salience. Their spread demonstrates susceptibility, not insight.
Fantasy and science fiction do not teach us to imagine better worlds. They teach us to imagine compelling ones. A narrative can feel profound while being completely disconnected from reality. Inspiration and accuracy are orthogonal. The persuasive power of stories comes from their alignment with evolved psychological vulnerabilities, not from their correspondence with truth.
So the correct technical framing is this. Stories are not tools invented to gain understanding of humanity or destiny. They are artifacts produced by brains shaped for survival under uncertainty. They can be pleasurable, motivating, or culturally stabilizing. They can sometimes illuminate patterns of behavior. But their beauty should not be confused with truth. The feeling of depth they produce is an illusion, not a discovery.
> Emotions are not learned through narrative. They are innate regulatory systems shaped by natural selection.
Emotions are deeply shaped by culture. Infants need emotional mirroring, co-regulation, and guidance in how to deal with and “develop” emotions. In some cultures, emotions exist not isolated in individuals but only in relationships (never “I am angry”, but “there is anger between us”). In Asian cultures, you typically soak up that you cannot feel only joy from winning but at the same time feel grief because the other lost. Infants that do not receive adequate mirroring develop long term brain damage and other pathologies. The narrative is/becomes a crucial part of how we perceive ourselves and our emotions.
I should clarify a mistake in how I phrased this earlier. Emotions are shaped by both innate biology and environment. Early mirroring, co regulation, and social interaction are essential for normal emotional development. That evidence is well established. Where I disagree is the leap from that fact to the claim that narrative is a crucial or primary mechanism of emotional formation.
Emotional regulation and differentiation emerge long before narrative competence. Infants acquire affective patterns through direct interaction and embodied feedback, not stories or symbolic self models. Cultural differences reflect how emotions are framed and expressed, not that narrative creates them. Narrative comes later as a descriptive layer that organizes experience, but it is downstream of emotion, not its cause.
That quote is a category error. It’s about moral judgment of people, not epistemic evaluation of claims. I’m not condemning Le Guin, her character, or anyone who enjoys fiction. I’m saying a specific explanatory claim about how stories relate to truth and human cognition is false.
If “judge not” applied here, then no scientific criticism is permissible at all. You couldn’t say a theory is wrong, a model is flawed, or a claim is unsupported, because the critic is also imperfect. That standard would immediately end every serious discussion on HN.
Quoting scripture in response to an evolutionary and cognitive argument isn’t a rebuttal. It’s a frame shift from “is this claim true” to “are you allowed to say it.” That avoids engaging the substance entirely.
If you think the argument is wrong, point to the error. If not, appealing to moral humility doesn’t rescue a claim from being false.
I wonder if they'll explore other music services as well. As I understand it, Deezer, Qobuz, and Tidal can all get ripped easily enough. Although I'm not sure if they rate limit downloads past a certain point.
I'm a bit sad that they chose to focus on music rather than audiobooks. Creating an archive of audiobooks seem like it would be more aligned with their mission.
I think one of the things that is missing from this post is engaging a bit in trying to answer: what are the highest priority AI-related problems that the industry should seek to tackle?
Karpathy hints at one major capability unlock being UI generation, so instead of interacting with text the AI can present different interfaces depending on the kind of problem. That seems like a severely underexplored problem domain so far. Who are the key figures innovating in this space so far?
In the most recent Demis interview, he suggests that one of the key problems that must be solved is online / continuous learning.
Aside from that, another major issues is probably reducing hallucinations and increasing reliability. Ideally you should be able to deploy an LLM to work on a problem domain, and if it encounters an unexpected scenario it reaches out to you in order to figure out what to do. But for standard problems it should function reliably 100% of the time.
The way that this is handled on most websites is that you show "X time ago" but you can hover over the time to get the full timestamp. For example, that's how it's handled here on Hacker News and Reddit.
Honestly, the fact that mobile browsers don't provide a way to see the contents of the title attribute is a severe UX failing on the part of the browser developers, not the website developers, who are literally using the attribute as intended.
Maybe these researchers and experts should show up and present their suggested positions. People are tired of ivory tower proclamations, and most fundamentally, you need to reach people where they're at. That's just the kind of information ecosystem that we're living in, so people need to adapt.
Unfortunately, ignoring the public sphere and pretending that professionals are above such things is why we're now stuck with someone like Robert Kennedy Jr running HHS. This guy grew enough of a following and movement to reach a position of power and influence and he was barely challenged by experts all along the way.
Experts post on social media all the time, but their voices are not given any weight beyond that of people who aren't experts on the topic.
RFK jr running HHS is the wave of the future. Unfortunately, we will continue to have non-experts who generate high engagement content running policy decisions more and more in the future.
> we will continue to have non-experts who generate high engagement content running policy decisions more and more in the future.
I don't see why you'd assume that only non-experts will generate high engagement content.
I don't disagree but such a sweeping assumption surely needs some argumentation and elucidation. Understating the mechanics of this quite unnatural state of affairs is vastly more valuable that the mere observation of its existence.
All I've seen to date are appeals to human nature but that's a highly misleading line of reasoning that creates more confusion about both human nature and the forces driving content creation.
There are only 24h in a day and each one chooses how to invest that time.
Experts invest time in becoming experts in their field. Youtubers invest time in generating high engagement content and attracting more viewers. Can't have both.
[0] https://raccaldin36.livejournal.com/1849917.html
reply