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

181–190 of 291 posts

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

#181

Post by simonbarker87 »

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…

But animals and humans are different. Humans are an animal but to suggest a lion, dog, fish etc operate in the same manner seems a little odd to me.

My dog was perfectly happy to snooze most of the day, play with toys occasionally, go for walks and try to hunt rodents. I on the other hand would be incredibly bored with that.

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

#182

Post by CuriouslyC »

not-a-llm wrote: post #144
CuriouslyC wrote: post #10

The answer to this question after a lot of reflection: games. AI can slop fork or clone existing software well, but a clone of an existing game is pointless, it's basically guaranteed to be derivative and worse than the original game, and games aren't so expensive that you can't just buy the original. AI can't know if new mechanics or angles to an existing genre will feel good to play, or if a new genre is fun, that…

all game stores are flooded with AI slop. good luck competing

Indy games markets have been flooded with human slop since long before AI was a thing, the marketing playbook hasn't changed at all, if you just fire games into the void you never had a shot.

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

#183

Post by lelanthran »

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.

> How is the "world"?

I have no idea what that means.

> Why does the "world" have that power?

Okay, lets say "the environment". The universe does not care whether you live or die, so why are you so sure that someone will paternalistically care for you?

On what are you basing this viewpoint on?

> Machine owners don't have the power, for example.

That's because the world doesn't care about them either. So why would the world care about you?

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

#184

Post by CuriouslyC »

fragmede wrote: post #151
CuriouslyC wrote: post #10

The answer to this question after a lot of reflection: games. AI can slop fork or clone existing software well, but a clone of an existing game is pointless, it's basically guaranteed to be derivative and worse than the original game, and games aren't so expensive that you can't just buy the original. AI can't know if new mechanics or angles to an existing genre will feel good to play, or if a new genre is fun, that…

Why is it guaranteed to be worse? A motivated fan of a game took issue with some part of the game and made their own one that didn't have that issue. They made it better in their eyes. Who are you to judge that it's worse and not better?

Games are complex systems, you actually have to playtest them to observe whether the changes you made increase or decrease the fun, despite your best guess. A lot of times things that seem like they should be fun actually aren't for reasons you couldn't predict. This is what makes them immune to being completely automated.

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

#185

Post by lelanthran »

frozenseven wrote: post #175
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"...

>owners of the machine have no need to keep you alive And what reason do they have for killing everyone else? Where is this abject nonsense even coming from? You can't just assert that the "owners of the machine" are all cartoonishly evil for some unknown reason. All else being equal, at least Sam Altman et al. aren't constantly making up fantasies about exterminating people.

> And what reason do they have for killing everyone else?

Who said they would kill everyone else? Since the rest of your strawmanned caricatured argument is a response to an argument never made, there's no point in addressing it.

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

#186

Post by RandomLensman »

lelanthran wrote: post #183
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.

> How is the "world"? I have no idea what that means. > Why does the "world" have that power? Okay, lets say "the environment". The universe does not care whether you live or die, so why are you so sure that someone will paternalistically care for you? On what are you basing this viewpoint on? > Machine owners don't have the power, for example. That's because the world doesn't care about them either. So why would the…

Sorry, "who" not "how".

If we are just talking about the physical environment then totally fine - a rock doesn't care about me, for example.

Humans tend to care about humans at least in some situations on average, though.

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

#187

Post by mlrtime »

globular-toast wrote: post #142
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"...

But this assumes the ultimate "want" is "stuff" like houses, cars etc. But that's all just a means to an end or at least secondary to the real want, which is sex. For now at least, that requires people.

"Everything in the world is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power"

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

#188

Post by singularity2001 »

burningChrome wrote: post #15

The other issue is Gen Z and Gen A are now very much opposed to AI. I'm wondering with those two sets of generations who already have a very negative view of AI, how AI can survive that coming tsunami of change. According to WRITER’s 2026 Enterprise Adoption Survey, 44% of Gen Z employees admit to sabotaging their company's AI strategy in at least one way compared to 29% of employees overall. Sabotage behaviours incl…

> The other issue is Gen Z and Gen A are now very much opposed to AI.

Jinxzi has Bernard as friend though

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

#189

Post by mlrtime »

Retric wrote: post #87
sarchertech wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many medical facilities are only staffed with permanent nurses, with doctors helicoptering in, from time to time, to take care of specific duties that may require certain licenses, or provide specific advice. Maybe for a very loose definition of medical facilities that includes assisted living facilities. But for example in an ER, nurses come and go with very rapid turnover and it’s common to staff with temporary t…

I think the only metric that matters is total medical care provided on a national / global scale. It may take vastly more training but on average a full annual physical provides less benefit on average than a 30 second vaccination requiring minimal training. Value creation and skill are wildly different things in the medical profession.

There is no reason the medical field needs to gate keep injections. Anyone can inject, you don't need a nurse. Maybe as far as an IV with some very basic training.

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

#190

Post by frozenseven »

lelanthran wrote: post #185
frozenseven wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>owners of the machine have no need to keep you alive And what reason do they have for killing everyone else? Where is this abject nonsense even coming from? You can't just assert that the "owners of the machine" are all cartoonishly evil for some unknown reason. All else being equal, at least Sam Altman et al. aren't constantly making up fantasies about exterminating people.

> And what reason do they have for killing everyone else? Who said they would kill everyone else? Since the rest of your strawmanned caricatured argument is a response to an argument never made, there's no point in addressing it.

Got it. You have no intention of defending what you actually said there.
Post reply on HN