Meta's embrace of AI is making its employees miserable

Post by watwut » Sun, May 10, 2026, 8:28 AM UTC

Terr_ wrote: post #267

ceejayoz wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LLMs came along and erased that assumption. Now you don't know if that e-mail, that 12-page design document, the 100 or 1000 line PR, or those 10 Jira tickets were written by someone who invested a lot of their own time into producing something, or if they had their AI subscription generate something that looked plausible. Oh, we know. It's pretty clear in many cases.

Perhaps a less-brittle version would be to replace "we don't know X" with "we can't easily prove X to the extent needed to deter it."

Post by trusche » Sun, May 10, 2026, 8:38 AM UTC

2wdfsd wrote: post #241

ceejayoz wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LLMs came along and erased that assumption. Now you don't know if that e-mail, that 12-page design document, the 100 or 1000 line PR, or those 10 Jira tickets were written by someone who invested a lot of their own time into producing something, or if they had their AI subscription generate something that looked plausible. Oh, we know. It's pretty clear in many cases.

lol yeeh... its obvious as hell. And frankly the best signal now is: the shorter it is the greater the likelihood it was at least expensive for the human to produce. Said in another way - a shorter thing is easier to make sense of completely and if its garbage - its garbage. At least the cost borne on you was minimised!

Post by dijksterhuis » Sun, May 10, 2026, 8:48 AM UTC

anon84873628 wrote: post #379

dodu_ wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, take my single sentence, blow it up to 3 paragraphs with LLMs, and then the person reading it can have an LLM summarize it in a single sentence. What the fuck are we even doing anymore?

The thing is, eventually these products will be more integrated into business workflows and have access to all the context, so the three paragraph expansion probably will be a significant improvement upon the original input. And either that person won't be employed anymore, of the thing they were asking for in the first place will be automated for them. I've already got my agent building a dossier for everyone we int…

Post by ahartmetz » Sun, May 10, 2026, 8:58 AM UTC

moring wrote: post #398

ahartmetz wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like one needs a big machine farm and a vast corpus of training data with a lot of manual curation to get started creating a competitive LLM, plus whatever technical expertise that I don't even know about. The stuff that makes LLMs exist now and not earlier. It might be possible to organize all that with volunteers and some paid work, but how in practice? Stallman seems kind of out of the game at this point…

> It seems like one needs a big machine farm and a vast corpus of training data with a lot of manual curation to get started creating a competitive LLM, plus whatever technical expertise that I don't even know about. The stuff that makes LLMs exist now and not earlier. "big machine farm" reminds me of folding@home, which needed the same and got it. "manual curation" is what Wikipedia did, as well as the free software…

Post by senordevnyc » Sun, May 10, 2026, 9:07 AM UTC

dag100 wrote: post #317

senordevnyc wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you steal time from humanity when they freely chose to use your product? You don’t owe people a perfect product that doesn’t “waste” their time when compared to some arbitrary standard of how it should be.

Your argument is effectively saying "how can lowering the quality of my product affect customers when they freely use it?". If you use Facebook regularly, you are locked into it because unless you manage to convince your entire friend network to move to some other social media with you, you will have to "leave them behind".