Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What will be left for us to work on?

normaltech.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 291 posts

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#161

Post by RandomLensman »

lelanthran wrote: post #90
zkmon wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disparity in ownership of machines is not the main factor that is driving the need for work. It is the un-ending desire (or selling pressure) to have things that require money to buy. Most people work to be able to pay their loans and have things that are perceived to be common needs in their geography and culture. These "needs" are sometimes enforced by the systems and government so that people don't stay away from…

You are missing my point; if you have no value other than unthinking manual labour to offer the world, why would the world keep you alive? "Work" doesn't exist to keep people busy, it exists to keep them alive.

How is the "world"? Why does the "world" have that power? Machine owners don't have the power, for example.

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#162

Post by sharikous »

jrowen wrote: post #70
zkmon wrote: post #59

You need to first address 1)What is work? 2)Why we need to work? Animals don't "work". Not atleast for their own sake. If there is enough green pasture and water around, they don't even migrate to other places. So if work is meant to provide food and shelter and if machines can ensure that, humans don't need to "work". Wealth is only a reserve capacity to help future generations so that they don't need to work for th…

This. Before we worry about how much work there is left, we have to define what work is "to be done." We're already at a point where an incredible amount of work done isn't strictly "necessary." It's not growing food, it's not making clothing, it's not building houses, or providing other basic needs and comforts... How many man-hours go into various parts of the advertising distribution chain? Though a certain fracti…

> We just need to find the social structures to provide people with basic needs and reserve "work" for things that are vital to society or truly inspired.

just?

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#163

Post by lelele »

CalRobert wrote: post #128
jimbob45 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, I think today a strong PM with no technical ability can produce higher quality technical output compared to a mediocre frontend developer with no project management ability. Wishful thinking by the managerial class. At best they can vibe code but they can’t verify that what was written is correct.

Well, they can try it out and see if it does what they want.

Sure, but how confident can they be that it doesn't also do things they don't want?

Tests can't be exhaustive, whereas even a mediocre developer is likely to possess enough background knowledge to notice risks that a non-developer would not think to test.

Some people keep forgetting that we haven't reached AGI yet. These tools can still make serious and sometimes obvious mistakes. Not long ago, vibe-coded software could embed credentials directly. That particular blunder seems to have been addressed, but there is still no reliable way to tell an LLM to avoid every class of obvious blunder.

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#164

Post by nibbleyou »

RandomLensman wrote: post #161
lelanthran wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing my point; if you have no value other than unthinking manual labour to offer the world, why would the world keep you alive? "Work" doesn't exist to keep people busy, it exists to keep them alive.

How is the "world"? Why does the "world" have that power? Machine owners don't have the power, for example.

If AGI can do everything and a few own the AGI, then they have that power.

Even now the machine owners have enough power to change laws to their liking, bending governments and public opinion to their will.

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#165

Post by RandomLensman »

nibbleyou wrote: post #164
RandomLensman wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is the "world"? Why does the "world" have that power? Machine owners don't have the power, for example.

If AGI can do everything and a few own the AGI, then they have that power. Even now the machine owners have enough power to change laws to their liking, bending governments and public opinion to their will.

Unless AGI has actual god-like powers, the owners don't have that power. Governments' and public opinion can change and are not so easy to control as you make it out to be. Is, for example, the EU AI Act or the GDPR the will of the machine owners?

The odd thing is that after the pandemic just showed what societies can enforce, somehow it all is forgotten again when it comes to who holds what power.

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#167

Post by shinryuu »

zkmon wrote: post #59

You need to first address 1)What is work? 2)Why we need to work? Animals don't "work". Not atleast for their own sake. If there is enough green pasture and water around, they don't even migrate to other places. So if work is meant to provide food and shelter and if machines can ensure that, humans don't need to "work". Wealth is only a reserve capacity to help future generations so that they don't need to work for th…

Agree on this. Since we have this wonderful system called capitalism there are tendencies for, relatively speaking, a few human beings hoard / control most of the productive capacity and as such wealth.

Some may consider local LLMs to help with that as the power of LLMs would be more distributed. I think local LLMs would help marginally. Companies as an entity would still be better positioned to use these to their advantage vis a vis individuals.

So projecting into the future I still wonder if it won't become more challenging for individuals to make a living on average.

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#168

Post by ElProlactin »

sharikous wrote: post #162
jrowen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Before we worry about how much work there is left, we have to define what work is "to be done." We're already at a point where an incredible amount of work done isn't strictly "necessary." It's not growing food, it's not making clothing, it's not building houses, or providing other basic needs and comforts... How many man-hours go into various parts of the advertising distribution chain? Though a certain fracti…

> We just need to find the social structures to provide people with basic needs and reserve "work" for things that are vital to society or truly inspired. just?

Yeah, isn't there an AI for that?

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#169

Post by trolleski »

zkmon wrote: post #86
lelanthran wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very short-sighted, and exceedingly common, take. Until the machines aren't owned by anyone (or owned by everyone, take your pick on the phrasing), the owners of the machine have no need to keep you alive. This take is basically "Don't worry, people like Sam Altman are looking out for us"...

Disparity in ownership of machines is not the main factor that is driving the need for work. It is the un-ending desire (or selling pressure) to have things that require money to buy. Most people work to be able to pay their loans and have things that are perceived to be common needs in their geography and culture. These "needs" are sometimes enforced by the systems and government so that people don't stay away from…

Look at Civilian Conservation Corps, a very interesting solution to all of it, especially that there is a transition period for full automation. Perhaps our job will be to "care" for the outcome in the real world that affects people.

Of course, billionaires have other plans, and are the main obstacle in achieving any sort of social cohesion.

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#170

Post by handoflixue »

pilgrim0 wrote: post #131

The very question is biased toward the idea that “something is coming”, as if we’re heading to some technological inevitability. I don’t see it happening. This whole “it’s coming” vibe is the narrative attached to the technology, it has nothing to do with the technology itself. It seems like people who buy it are trapped in the fictional reality of a very cheap advertisement, or should I say, propaganda. Your calcula…

I don't think one could have reasonably turned the tide on agriculture, factories, railroads, or electricity - and a smart person would presumably have seen a lot of the benefits years before they materialized. There's plenty of people alive today who saw most of the current landscape coming decades in advance.

Once you've used a BBS or modem, "online banking" is an obvious idea - just a very difficult one to implement until you add on decades of security and improved connectivity.

But also, the article is explicitly arguing against armageddon.

Post reply on HN