291–300 of 918 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some very close haircuts.
When was the last instance of this in the last 100 years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#Death
EDIT: One could argue whether the United Healthcare CEO assassination meets the criteria, too.
I don't know how to solve this in the current environment. A hiring manager friend said he's getting unprecedented number of application for a software engineering role. Ultimately applicants will endure whatever companies put in front of them with a job market that is this bad. If the government made this illegal companies would come out with ever increasingly silly filters, such as demanding specific college degree…
Just to add some hope and a different perspective, we received 23 applicants for an entry-level or early-career software developer position when it was open for a couple of months in early 2025. This is about the same number of applicants we usually get for an opening. Applicant count for similar positions by year: 23 - 2025 (the position I mentioned) 31 - 2025 10 - 2019 The above are three jobs where I was on the hi…
I did one of these once. Once . I felt so bad afterwards that I swore them off forever. It's not like the 'interview' was terrible or anything. I knew it was AI from the start. It was just that when I got done with it, I realized that I had talked at a computer for ~45 minutes. And, yet again, I was going to be ghosted by the company (I was), and that I was never going to get those 45 minutes back. That was time I co…
The key is skin in the game. If a human interviews me, if they're wasting my time, they're also wasting their own. So they have some incentive not to do that. But if an AI interviews me, the humans have no incentive not to waste my time. You want to have an AI interview me? No. It can interview my AI agent if you want, but not me . You want to interview me? Put a human on the line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please give me an example of what happens. Edit: before someone throws very strong platitudes at me again, I would like to see real-world examples. Because at least in my lifetime there have been zero consequences for people in power. Edit 2: I've been banned from replying to this thread (lol, talk about power of the state). I guess I didn't define my acceptance criteria properly. But I thought it would be clear that…
> Please give me an example of what happens. It’s easy to forget after 80 years of stable western democracies, but brutal equilibrium shifts do happen. There was a revolution every ~20 years in Europe between 1789 and 1917. And even during the 20th century, the history of much of the world is full of coups, revolts, and uprisings. See all the revolutions in ex-soviet republics, the Arab spring, etc. So you can pick a…
Again, am not a Trump supporter in anyway, but agree that when the wealthy keep getting richer while the blue-collar worker continues to struggle, this leads to discontentment and pushback.
It is all almost making richer even more richer, instead of properly hiring people for HR, AI bots. Instead of having more people at the supermarket, have the customers work as if they were employees, the only thing missing is fetching stuff from warehouse when missing on the shelves, but still pay the same or more. Instead of paying to artists, do job ads using generated AI images with code magically showing off mon…
> except they forget people also need money to buy their goods. Do they? Money is simply the accounting of debt. You do something for me, and when I can't immediately do something in return for you, you extend a loan to me so that I can make good on my side of the bargain later. If we record that I owe you something at some point in the future, we just created money! But if I don't need anything from you — because, s…
I really don't want to believe that people leading these huge corporations are dumb enough to actually think this, but at the same time I know better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same argument for removing customer service with chatbots or AI. It's entirely untrue, and creates a much worse customer experience, but because people drop out your KPIs / NPS is based off of people who were willing to put up with shit to get to a real human.
Give me an AI chatbot over someone with poor English skills reading a script any day of the week. My problem probably isn't unique, it's probably something fairly obvious that was vague in the instructions. Now, the important thing is offer a way to upgrade to a human. But I have no problem at all starting with AI, in fact I honestly prefer it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Direct trading kind of died out towards the end of middle age, are we supposed to go back in time?
No, why? If people still want other people to do things for them, accounting isn't going anywhere. It has already been invented. We don't have to un-invent it. But, if this our future, then humans remain relevant, so there is no concern about job loss or anything of that nature. If, however, some future plays out where people aren't needed to work anymore, there will simply be no need for trade. The magical AIs, or w…
> But, if this our future, then humans remain relevant, so there is no concern about job loss or anything of that nature.
Relevant as what? Serfs and accountants? Even short of that scenario, there is a big concern if the primary technology of redistribution (jobs) becomes far more scarce.
> If, however, some future plays out where people aren't needed to work anymore, there will simply be no need for trade.
People will still need raw materials and resources, and those are not evenly geographically distributed.
That is quite rich coming from Braintrust. The founder should spend less time doing press interviews and more time listening to feedback from his own community. I was from the outside intrigued by the unique way of working and signed up to learn more about it.
The thing that immediately jumped out is community members complaining about failing the initial screening without any feedback at all. This initial screening is apparently an AI interview. If the AI is so great, it should be trivial to get it to explain why it rejected interviewees. Unless it has serious shortcomings that would be risky to publicize.
Alternatively, this could be a sneaky way of collecting training data for the AI by preying on unsuspecting humans.