Live data from Hacker News

Meta's embrace of AI is making its employees miserable

nytimes.com

121–130 of 566 posts

Re: Meta's embrace of AI is making its employees miserable

#121
post #3

As someone who has spent a vast portion of life believing technology would make life better, I've come to the realisation that this idea is a fallacy. Technology amplifies power and until we collectively redefine and enforce a value system that benefits us all, the advancements in technology simply serve as a means of subjugation

This is exactly right, it gets examplified by Chinese people's attitude to new innovative technology. It's all doom and gloom in the west. But the thing is that both are correct stances on this technology for exactly the reason you mentioned. It's fundamentally different systems of governance of the same technology. One only ever saw new technology result in consolidation of power and collective decline and genuine grievances ignored, the other has demonstrated the ability to make new technology increase the collective well being of everybody. It's the low vs. high trust society, see the inverse of Francis Fukuyama's 1996 book Trust.

Re: Meta's embrace of AI is making its employees miserable

#122
post #3

As someone who has spent a vast portion of life believing technology would make life better, I've come to the realisation that this idea is a fallacy. Technology amplifies power and until we collectively redefine and enforce a value system that benefits us all, the advancements in technology simply serve as a means of subjugation

> until we collectively redefine and enforce a value system that benefits us all

Here's the problem: you can't.

First, people have disagreements, often very fundamental ones, over what "benefits us all". There's no way to resolve many such disagreements short of brute force.

Second, "enforce"--note the last five letters of that word--means some people are given the power to do things to other people that, if anyone else did them, would be crimes. Throw you in jail, fine you, restrict the things you can do. Indeed, that's how David Friedman, whose "The Machinery of Freedom" is worth reading, defines a government. And the problem is that government still has to be done by humans, and humans can't be trusted with the power to do such things.

Ultimately the only defense we have is to not give other people such power. Not governments, not tech giants, nobody. But that requires a degree of foresight that most people don't have, or don't want to take the time to exercise, particularly not if something juicy is in front of them. How many people back when Facebook first started would have been willing to simply not use it--because they foresaw that in a couple of decades, Facebook would become a huge monster that nobody knows how to rein in? If my own personal circle is any guide, the answer is "not enough to matter"--of all the people I know, I am the only one who does not use Facebook and never has. And even I didn't refuse to use it back when it first started because I saw what things would be like today--I just had an instinctive reaction against it and listened to that reaction, and then watched the trainwreck slowly develop over the years since.

So we're stuck. Even if we end up deciding that, for example, the government will break up the tech giants, slap huge fines on Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc., maybe confiscate a bunch of their property, maybe even make them do a bunch of community service, possibly even some of them serve some jail time--it will still be just other humans doing things to them that no humans can be trusted to do. It won't fix the root problem. It will just kick the can down the road a little longer.

Re: Meta's embrace of AI is making its employees miserable

#123
post #8

I think there is a bit of wider social norms piece missing as well on AI use in knowledge work context. Someone forwarded an enormous amount of text over teams the other day at work. From someone (bless her) that always means well but usually averages about one spelling mistake per word and rarely goes over 20 words per message. Clearly copy paste chatgpt. For say hn gang that thinks in terms of context shifts, infor…

I've run into a similar thing where I'll be cc'd on support tickets with one of our customer support agents and they'll then reply to me with what is clearly an ai summary of the single email from the customer that I can already read. I do think they're trying to be helpful, but it's hard to not feel like they think I'm a child or an idiot. Back in the day we agreed that Googling something for someone was rude (letmegooglethatforyou.com being a good example), I don't know why ai summaries and slop aren't understood in the same way.

Re: Meta's embrace of AI is making its employees miserable

#124

I am not a big fan of unions, but we need some form of union as soon as possible.

One of humanity’s greatest inventions imo. Just imagine a world where we didn’t have the ability to mobilize a workforce in pursuit of a common goal.

Re: Meta's embrace of AI is making its employees miserable

#125
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because intelligence is mostly genetically-determined None of the points of Idiocracy depend on whether intelligence is by nature or by nurture. The premise of the movie stays exactly the same if you replace those two minutes of backstory with a dysfunctional education system, the return of child labour, an increase in teen pregnancies, and anti-intellectualism in general.

I think the opening scene makes the hereditary position very clear, I don’t know how anyone could interpret that as not marking the case of ‘nature’ determining intelligence. Edit; sorry, either I misread your comment or it was changed. On the premise that ignoring the intro a nurture based idiocracy could be possible, I would suggest it’s the thoroughness and extent of dumbing down that wouldn’t be possible if it wa…

Is it hereditary when parent is a dumb jock who creates a ridiculously bad environment in terms of 'nurture' aspect? I am not sure you thought your argument fully through.

Re: Meta's embrace of AI is making its employees miserable

#126
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OSI is garbage, and "open source" outside of the most viral licenses is too. I'll go further and say that it accelerated getting us into this mess we're in today. The OSI is owned and controlled by the tech titan hyperscalers who benefit from free labor. Useful "open source software" always gets encrusted by the big titans that then build means to control the tech, and then the means to control us . And just to r…

>Pretty soon you won't even be able to use your Linux. Everything will be attested. I want to rescue this snippet. Few of us remember the "fight" and discussions that happened when Firefox first pondered the idea of allowing encrypted video on the platform. Same with Linux. This was when The powers that be forced Netflix and other video distributors to introduce that opaque tech in the web. The same thing happened wi…

> But we as a society are indeed slowly and steadily giving away our rights of many, for the rights of few cartels.

Increasing geopolitical multi-polarity may force big tech to give up ground. The EU and ASEAN in particular should be hitting Google et al. with the regulatory hammer.

When we get clearer heads back in power (Lina Khan was great, but moved much too slow), they ought to carve the tech cos into Baby Bells. Horizontally so they have to compete with themselves.

> It's been a sad journey to see for someone born in the early 80s.

The dream of the open web, privacy, freedom of speech, and freedom of computing is being killed by the oligarchy. And they convinced us the progressive thing to do was to give them our labor - they hung us with it.

Re: Meta's embrace of AI is making its employees miserable

#127
post #3

As someone who has spent a vast portion of life believing technology would make life better, I've come to the realisation that this idea is a fallacy. Technology amplifies power and until we collectively redefine and enforce a value system that benefits us all, the advancements in technology simply serve as a means of subjugation

Let's go there: this is what the Unabomber was on about, and there has long been an effort to stop people noticing this. Ultimately you end up with either going for totalitarianism (either to arrest development in the status quo, maintain a state of anarcho primitivism or technocratic tedium) or we resist that and break out by trying to forge forward into some unknown unchartered territory. In practice we have no cho…

I mean, I don't see what the rush is.

It's like Silicon Valley overdosed on Adderall.

You can have the same tech, just in 5 human generations. I don't see why you have to have it now.

Re: Meta's embrace of AI is making its employees miserable

#128

I noticed a lot more joy using AI from people at smaller companies or working by themselves :) I say this as someone self employed that burned almost $1000 on tokens last month. And had. A lot of fun doing it.

I work by myself and feel no joy in using AI.

Re: Meta's embrace of AI is making its employees miserable

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the opening scene makes the hereditary position very clear, I don’t know how anyone could interpret that as not marking the case of ‘nature’ determining intelligence. Edit; sorry, either I misread your comment or it was changed. On the premise that ignoring the intro a nurture based idiocracy could be possible, I would suggest it’s the thoroughness and extent of dumbing down that wouldn’t be possible if it wa…

Is it hereditary when parent is a dumb jock who creates a ridiculously bad environment in terms of 'nurture' aspect? I am not sure you thought your argument fully through.

Yes, and science explicitly allows him to continue procreating where otherwise he would have not been able to (he was in an accident because he was stupid). It’s explicitly saying the darwinian winnowing of the weaker (dumber) members of the species has been interfered with.
Post reply on HN