Years ago, somebody online described a legally ignorant post I’d made about a matter of law as a fractal of wrongness: the whole conclusion was wrong, but also every part of it was wrong. The wrongness had more wrongness inside it.
They were correct. When I read their post, I realized I'd been talking out of my ass.
But man oh man, even at my most ignorant and arrogant, I’ve got nothing on this Andreessen guy. Pheweeee.
Sitting here trying to make a satire transposing Andreesen’s dumbassery into a nontechnica realm, and this is the best I’ve managed:
“A world in which trees are all destroyed by squirrels, who then themselves die out — logically, necessarily — is a world in which nut production goes through the roof, absent the squirrels to eat them. Because zero divided by zero is infinity, we will then live in an infinite forest, beyond all imagining.”
Last thought, and then I swear I'll kick this numnut out of my head and get back to the better things I was doing:
Somebody here made the astute observation that people keep following this pattern where they try an LLM and decide that it’s terrible for their •own• area of expertise, but is amazing for something they’re completely ignorant about.
This may help explain why all these tech olibros think AI is amazing at absolutely everything.