61–70 of 337 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like 5 humans got replaced by AI. I don't think most people worry about whether all humans will be replaced, simply whether or not they will be replaced, or people they care about.
Which is very short sighted. You or anyone close to you might not be replaced but it should be clear that you don't want to live in a society with 20% unemployment.
Reminds me of the old joke "90% of the code is 90% of the work. The last 10% of the code is the other 90% of the work." I have spent almost my entire adult life (since 1986) shipping products. One of the very first things that I learned, was that "shipping" > "designing". There's so much work in delivering products that will carry your brand, and then must be supported. I liken it to having children. Conceiving them…
Then there's the technical debt!
Shipping is frankly the easy part. It's the operating overhead that often breaks you.
I liken it to free puppies.
The primary product of AI is labor displacement and consequently wage supression. This is what OpenAI and Anthropic are really selling. It didn't start with AI but AI is accelerating it. This is what layoffs have been about since the pandemic. People in fear of losing their jobs do extra unpaid work and aren't asking for raises. The theoretical potential of AI gives companies the excuse to fire more people. The inves…
> Also, who is going to buy anything when nobody has any money? This assumes that a mass consumer economy is necessary, when it isn't. Mass consumption is relatively new, for most of history economies functioned with just a small consuming elite and large underclass that consumed very little. We are already approaching that again in the states given that the top 10% of earners are already responsible for nearly half…
>> Yes, the tools are powerful, but a CEO who thinks they replace the work of employees is simply a bad CEO. This is a broad generalization of employees. There will be some "routine tasks" that can be done by AI, now that is a lot more powerful. There won't be as many employees needed for routine work - for example L1 and L2 support work. For example, many companies had ML engineers building models for various models…
You know who can't do that? People who call L1 support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re making the case for worker-owned cooperatives. Love it — we need more of them!
In software I can imagine a worker-owned consultancy, but not a product company. It would imply staying in one place working on one product for your whole life, which doesn't sound inspiring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy
Acting like centrally planned dictatorships is a good form of collaboration is just so off base. There's no reason to think that introducing democracy into the work place wouldn't immediately benefit both workers + customers.
If this sounds crazy the C suite + board already vote on who gets hired into the executive team, vote for the direction of the company, and vote for their compensation packages (hint, they never decrease them).
Why shouldn't workers be legally enabled to do the same? What is the justification to this? I'm curious to hear it because the only way people can justify the current system is declaring that some people are actually more deserving of prestige, money, and benefits while others deserve to suffer.
With income inequality increasing, healthcare outcomes worsening, and children literally becoming stupider isn't it time to question the current system and ask ourselves if this is the society we truly want?
It's our fault for stupidly naming everything AI: A* search -> AI Backtracking -> AI Neural Networks -> AI Fuzzy Logic -> AI Genetic Algorithm -> AI Deep Learning -> AI Generative "AI" -> AI Similar to Tesla naming it's driver assistant "auto-pilot" in 2015 and your average Joe thought he would be able to sleep while the car would drive him to work. The CEO just hear AI and think of AGI. They expect Skynet.
There are a lot of bad CEOs, though. It's a lot like a politician -- it's quite difficult to become a CEO, and the skills to make it to that position don't always intersect nicely with the skills necessary to actually do the job well.
what about zukerberg he didnt have to do any politics to get to ceo. yet he is the face of ai layoffs and bad ceo.
A custom-built AI would be pretty good at replacing a CEO. Think of all the things a company could do if they reduced overhead by that much?
You don't need custom built anything, ChatGPT could generate corporate initiatives and PR statements all day and no one would notice.
A custom-built AI would be pretty good at replacing a CEO. Think of all the things a company could do if they reduced overhead by that much?
Robotics aren't there yet, it needs to go on golf playdates with investors and board members.