351–360 of 411 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you going to take my washing machine next? AI is a gateway to spend more time, to do whatever you want. It's your decision to let your brain rot away or not.
We work harder than people at any other point in history, despite all our technological advances. What makes you think AI will be different?
>> We are down in working hours per year from 3.500h in 1870 to around 1400h now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI is a gateway to spend more time, to do whatever you want That's not how any previous advancement has worked. "Work expands to fill the time saved" and all that.
We are down in working hours per year from 3.500h in 1870 to around 1400h now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI is a gateway to spend more time, to do whatever you want That's not how any previous advancement has worked. "Work expands to fill the time saved" and all that.
We are down in working hours per year from 3.500h in 1870 to around 1400h now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are down in working hours per year from 3.500h in 1870 to around 1400h now.
that coincides with industrialization and the subsequent rise of trade unions. the alternative was violence against capital.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With programming, the same basic tension exists as with the more effective smarter AI-enhanced approaches to conceptual learning: effectiveness is a function of effort, and the whole reason for the "AI epidemic" is that people are avoiding effort like the plague. That's not true. Yes, you can get more effective at something with more effort, but you can get even more effective at it if you find a way to get results…
> [..] but you can get even more effective at it if you find a way to get results without actually doing the work yourself in the first place. No. In learning, there is no substitution to practice. Once you jump to the conclusion, you stop understanding the "why". Throughout various stages of technological advancement, we've come with tools to help relieve us of tedious efforts, because we understood the "why", the u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that coincides with industrialization and the subsequent rise of trade unions. the alternative was violence against capital.
I don’t get the argument. Hours are hours and that there is no correlation to technical advancements is an extrem position to have… but hey you are not alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never saw anyone on HN bemoan the “environmental damage” of data centers until LLMs started popping up. As if all other software and internet tech is necessary and “worth it”?
They did, with crypto. The environmental cost of, like, a website is minuscule in comparison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? It looks like a reasonable interview question.
I suppose it depends on the position, but if your company is building CRUD apps with Postgres and you're asking candidates about Fibonacci, you're wasting both your time and, more importantly, the candidate's time. Instead, you're better off focusing on relevant topics like SQL, testing, refactoring, and soft skills. These "clever" questions are pointless. They either serve to stroke the interviewer’s ego: "Look, I k…
But I agree you can hire a shitty programmer, because his soft skills are amazing. I worked with people that wouldn't contribute much to the code, but created a culture and improved processes in the company. But you should be aware that you are not hiring for a coding position then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t get the argument. Hours are hours and that there is no correlation to technical advancements is an extrem position to have… but hey you are not alone.
It's not that there's no correlation. It's that there's many, MANY other reasons before you get even close to "oh yeah, and then we invented the steam engine"