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

I refused to train the AI that could replace me

restofworld.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 124 posts

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#71

Post by eru »

gmueckl wrote: post #49
eru wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wear deodorant to get along with the humans around me. Concrete folks I can point to (even if I don't necessarily know the guy next to me on the train by name nor will see him again). No nebulous society involved that makes collective decisions in the abstract.

You got it backwards. Society is simple the collective that forms transitively from you, your connections, theirs and so on. You are pointing at a tree and missing that it's standing in the forest.

> Society is simple the collective that forms transitively from you, your connections, theirs and so on.

Where do you draw the line? Does the collective that makes these collective decisions you are so fond of have to include, say, people in Russia?

You can default to existing political structures and voting systems as a preliminary answer to get going. And they work for some things. But ain't nothing simple nor god given about that.

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#72

Post by yen223 »

raincole wrote: post #43
eru wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The washing machine and dishwasher definitely did. I don't own a car, so I can't comment on that.

They release women from housekeeping... to workplaces.

You should ask a working woman if she'd rather be at home doing dishes and laundry by hand without pay

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#73

Post by eru »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #55
unleashhale wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like how the car gave us back so many more hours to spend actually living instead of working. And the washing machine. And the computer. And the Internet.

Increased productivity is nothing to sneeze at even if you work the same amount of hours. The real problem with AI is that the productivity benefits are focused with the owners and not the workers.

> The real problem with AI is that the productivity benefits are focused with the owners and not the workers.

What makes you think so? What evidence do we have one way or another?

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#74

Post by eru »

qsera wrote: post #31
unleashhale wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like how the car gave us back so many more hours to spend actually living instead of working. And the washing machine. And the computer. And the Internet.

>actually living... Watching TV...Or consuming social media..

Who am I to judge what other people decide to do with their freetime. It's not like lurking on HN is morally superior.

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#75

Post by eru »

consp wrote: post #59
eru wrote: post #15

People have objected to training their replacements since forever. Younger people, foreigners, now machines. What else is new? I don't think you are under any moral or ethical obligation to train your replacement. But I don't think the decision makes much of a difference one way or another in the grand scheme of things. > You may ask: Why would anyone agree to train an AI model in the very skills they took years to a…

> I don't think you are under any moral or ethical obligation to train your replacement. Depending on where you live, there might not even be a legal obligation.

Details likely depend on whatever contract you are signing.

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#76

Post by BoredomIsFun »

arjie wrote: post #51
unleashhale wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like how the car gave us back so many more hours to spend actually living instead of working. And the washing machine. And the computer. And the Internet.

All of these things have been marvelous. The washing machine in particular is such a marvel that almost all Amish use one.

> that almost all Amish use one.

There are small pedal powered ones. I am sure you can rig a horse driven washing machine...

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#77

Post by seanmcdirmid »

eru wrote: post #73
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increased productivity is nothing to sneeze at even if you work the same amount of hours. The real problem with AI is that the productivity benefits are focused with the owners and not the workers.

> The real problem with AI is that the productivity benefits are focused with the owners and not the workers. What makes you think so? What evidence do we have one way or another?

We are seeing workers get laid off to free up more money for AI and only the AI techies are making more money? It could be temporary, but the way AI is currently owned and structured, the owners and investors are positioned to reap almost all of the financial benefits whereas workers will just be expected to do more with AI for the same pay and hours worked.

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#78

Post by szastamasta »

amriksohata wrote: post #67

People said this when self checkouts came to supermarkets, "i refuse to use them so that people stay in employment" within a few years most are self checkout and very few lanes left for staff to supervise on normal checkouts (mostly for elderly or disabled). Both remained but the weight went towards more people going through self checkouts (even if the other lanes take more space); My point is that people can resist…

I’m not so sure about the self checkout. I would rather say this was engineered by stores. From what I remember stores have on purpose replaced cashiers with self checkout machines, leaving only one or two. This resulted with long queues and forced people to self-checkout.

I still hate self-checkout machines and always try to avoid them. But queues now are unbearable and of course, now that machines are there, staff is expected to do more than just checkout. So they often leave their spot and you can only use the machine.

Labor is replaced on purpose, with a strict plan. Also, everything you do in store is precisely managed (single route from entrance to exit without a way to skip any section, bread at the far end of the store, product layout on specific shelves and near checkout)

I don't believe this was a result of organic demand from customers.

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#79

Post by arjie »

left-struck wrote: post #52
arjie wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of these things have been marvelous. The washing machine in particular is such a marvel that almost all Amish use one.

While our time working at home has definitely gone down, our time at work hasn’t though. The point is our employers just expect more, and the benefits of whatever new efficiency is gained, if any, are not passed onto those at the bottom or middle.

Without a doubt, I cannot imagine the world would have been made better if my mother was not an eye surgeon even if it meant my father, a different kind of surgeon, made half of what he would otherwise. Besides the obvious fulfillment of self my mother had, there is the reality that many eyes were operated on that would not otherwise have been. That is a story repeated across almost every profession (not all, certainly women make worse bouncers).

Twice the labour force is just far too much of a power amplifier. Many things that would otherwise lie undone simply get done. Not 2x perhaps because housework etc needs to be done one way or the other but I suspect some large fraction of growth is just better labor participation and labor allocation.

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#80

Post by tonyedgecombe »

unleashhale wrote: post #26
eru wrote: post #15

People have objected to training their replacements since forever. Younger people, foreigners, now machines. What else is new? I don't think you are under any moral or ethical obligation to train your replacement. But I don't think the decision makes much of a difference one way or another in the grand scheme of things. > You may ask: Why would anyone agree to train an AI model in the very skills they took years to a…

Just like how the car gave us back so many more hours to spend actually living instead of working. And the washing machine. And the computer. And the Internet.

I’m not sure about the car. I seem to remember reading that commute time has been remarkably consistent even going back to Roman times. All the car allowed us to do is build homes further away from our workplace.
Post reply on HN