261–270 of 920 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The french revolution did not go well for the average french person. Not sure guillotines are the solution we need.
How did it not go well for the avg person? The status quo does not go well for the avg person.
If we want to continue on the path of increased human development we desperately need to lift the productivity of a whole bunch of labor intensive sectors.
We're going to need to seriously think about how to redistribute the gains, but that's an issue regardless of AI (things like effective tax policy).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> instead of only somewhat reliably fulfilling very narrowly scoped tasks that require no creativity or expertise. This alone is enough to completely reorganise the labour market, as it describe an enormous number of roles.
How many people could be replaced by a proper CMS or a Excel sheet right now already? Probably dozens of millions, and yet they are at their desks working away. It's easy to sit in a café and ponder about how all jobs will be gone soon but in practice people aren't as easily replacable.
In every technology wave so far, we've disrupted many existing jobs. However we've also opened up new kinds of jobs. And, because it is easier to retrain humans than build machines for those jobs, we wound up with more and better jobs. This is the first technology wave that doesn't just displace humans, but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can. Right now it can't replace human…
> but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can What makes you think that? Self driving cars have had untold billions of dollars in reaearch and decades in applied testing, iteration, active monitoring, etc and it still has a very long tail of unaddressed issues. They've been known to ignore police traffic redirections, they've run right through construction barriers, and recently…
I think you're confusing your cherry-picked comparison with reality.
LLMs are eliminating the need to have a vast array of positions on payrolls. From copywriters to customer support, and even creative activities such as illustration and even authoring books, today's LLMs are already more than good enough to justify replacing people with the output of any commercial chatbot service.
Software engineering is being affected as well, and it requires far greater know-how, experience, and expertise to meet the hiring bar.
> And when you talk about applying this same tech, so confidently, to domains far more nuanced and complex than (...)
Yes, your tech job is also going to be decimated. It's not a matter of having PMs write code. It's an issue of your junior SDE armed with a LLM being quite able to clear your bug backlog in a few days while improving test coverage metrics and refactoring code back from legacy status.
If a junior SDE can suddenly handle the workload that previously you required a couple of medior and senior developers, why would a company keep around 4 or 5 seasoned engineers when an inexperienced one is already able to handle the workload?
That's where the jobs will vanish. Even if demand remains there, it dropped considerably as to not justify retaining so many people in a company's payroll.
And what are you going to do, them? Drive a Uber?
I'm flying, ofc, this is just a weird theory I had in the back of my head for the past 20 years, and it seems like we're getting there.
Antirez you are the best
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The french revolution did not go well for the average french person. Not sure guillotines are the solution we need.
How did it not go well for the avg person? The status quo does not go well for the avg person.
You might want to look at the etymology of the word “terrorism” (despite the most popular current use, it wasn't coined for non-state violence) and what class suffered the most in terms of both judicial and non-judicial violent deaths during the revolutionary period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can What makes you think that? Self driving cars have had untold billions of dollars in reaearch and decades in applied testing, iteration, active monitoring, etc and it still has a very long tail of unaddressed issues. They've been known to ignore police traffic redirections, they've run right through construction barriers, and recently…
> What makes you think that? Self driving cars have had (...) I think you're confusing your cherry-picked comparison with reality. LLMs are eliminating the need to have a vast array of positions on payrolls. From copywriters to customer support, and even creative activities such as illustration and even authoring books, today's LLMs are already more than good enough to justify replacing people with the output of any…
I'd love a source to these claims. Many companies are claiming that they are able to layoff folks because of AI, but in fact, AI is just a scapegoat to counteract the reckless overhiring due to free money in the market over the last 5-10 years and investors are demanding to see a real business plan and ROI. "We can eliminate this headcount due to the efficiency of our AI" is just a fancy way to make the stock price go up while cleaning up the useless folks.
People have ideas. There are substantially more ideas than people who can implement ideas. As with most technology, the reasonable expectation is to assume that people are just going to want more done by the now tool powered humans, not less things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
UBI is not a good solution because you still have to provision everything on the market, so it's a subsidy to private companies that sell the necessities of life on the market. If we're dreaming up solutions to problems, much better would be to remove the essentials from the market and provide them to everyone universally. Non-market housing, healthcare, education all provided to every citizen by virtue of being a hu…
You can’t provide valuable things for “free” en masse without institutionalizing either slavery or robbery. The value must come from somewhere. The costs of what you propose are enormous. No legislation can change that fact. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Who’s going to pay for it? Someone who is not paying for it today. How do you intend to get them to consent to that? Or do you think that the needs of t…
Utter nonsense.
Do you believe the European countries that provides higher education for free are manning tenure positions with slaves or robbing people at gunpoint?
How come do you see public transportation services in some major urban centers being provided free of charge?
How do you explain social housing programmes conducted throughout the world?
Are countries with access to free health care using slavery to keep hospitals and clinics running?
What you are trying to frame as impossibilities is already the reality for many decades in countries ranking far higher in development and quality of living indexes that the US.
How do you explain that?
In every technology wave so far, we've disrupted many existing jobs. However we've also opened up new kinds of jobs. And, because it is easier to retrain humans than build machines for those jobs, we wound up with more and better jobs. This is the first technology wave that doesn't just displace humans, but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can. Right now it can't replace human…
>But as its capabilities improve, what do displaced humans transition to? IF there is intellectual/office work that remains complex enough to not be tackled by AI, we compete for those. Manual labor takes the rest. Perhaps that’s the shift we’ll see: nowadays the guy piling up bricks makes a tenth of the architects’ salary, that relation might invert. And the indirect effects of a society that values intellectual wor…