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

Replacement.ai

replacement.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#101

Post by _cenw »

ameliaquining wrote: post #57
photonthug wrote: post #14

It's actually kinda noteworthy that corporations don't talk like this (yet). Masks are off lately in political discourse, where we're all in on crass flexing on the powerless, the othering, cruelty, humiliation. How long before CEOs are openly talking about workers in the same ways that certain politicians talk about ${out_group}? If you're b2b with nothing consumer-facing to boycott, may as well say what you really…

What's to be gained from talking like this in public as a corporate figure? In politics it helps shore up the support of voters who might not otherwise trust that you'll side with them against the people you're demeaning; there's no corporate analogy to this.

The visible presence or absence of anything including the words "diversity" "equity" "inclusion" (or "woman" apparently) was and is the same heging.

At least with a politician you can sometimes believe it, whereas capitalism's spine is infinitely flexible.

Re: Replacement.ai

#102

Post by Loughla »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

The problem is that AI and advanced robotics (and matter synthesis and all that future stuff) must come with a post scarcity mindset. Maybe that mindset needs to happen before.

Either way, without that social pattern, I'm afraid all this does is enshrine a type of futuristic serfdom that is completely insurmountable.

Re: Replacement.ai

#103

Post by fragmede »

orourke wrote: post #69
darthoctopus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that is the point of Luddism! the original Luddite movement was not ipso facto opposed to progress, but rather to the societal harm caused by society-scale economic obsolescence. the entire history of technology is also powerful business interests smearing this movement as being intrinsically anti-progress, rather than directly addressing these concerns…

I think the concern in this case is that, unlike before where machines were built for other people to use, we’re now building machines that may be able to use themselves.

The concern is the same, people want to be taken care of by society, even if they don't have a job, for whatever reason.

Re: Replacement.ai

#104

Post by pesfandiar »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

It's wrong to assume the owners will share the productivity gains with everyone, especially when reliance on labour will be at its lowest, and the power structure of a data/AI economy is more concentrated than anything we've seen before. IMO, the assumption that some form of basic income or social welfare system will be funded voluntarily is as delusional as thinking communism would work.

Re: Replacement.ai

#105

Post by tasuki »

gnfargbl wrote: post #27

The hypothesized superintelligent AI will be essentially immortal. If it destroys us, it will be entirely alone in the known Universe, forever. That thought should terrify it enough to keep us around... even if only in the sense that I keep cats.

If it's so intelligent, it can probably create something better than humans, no?

Re: Replacement.ai

#106

Post by federiconafria »

eterm wrote: post #96

MY annoyance is when AI is used instead of better machines. I just logged onto github and saw a "My open pull requests button". Instead of taking me to a page which quickly queried a database, it opened a conversation with copilot which then slowly thought about how to work out my open pull requests. I closed the window before it had an answer. Why are we replacing actual engineering with expensive guesswork?

I don't think that's an AI problem, we've had unnecessary software everywhere for a while now.

AI just makes it worse.

Re: Replacement.ai

#107

Post by fainpul »

merth wrote: post #26
sincerely wrote: post #9

I kind of get it, but at the same time...isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology? It feels like somehow we should have figured out how to cope with the "but what about the old jobs" problem

We invent machines to free ourselves from labour, yet we’ve built an economy where freedom from labour means losing your livelihood.

> We invent machines to free ourselves from labour

That's a very romantic view.

The development, production and use of machines to replace labour is driven by employers to produce more efficiently, to gain an edge and make more money.

Re: Replacement.ai

#108

Post by [deleted] »

Filligree wrote: post #71
happytoexplain wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>pls don't replace us Yeah, how dare they not want to lose their careers. Losing a bunch of jobs in a short period is terrible. Losing a bunch of careers in a short period is a catastrophe. Also, this is dishonest - nobody is confused about why people don't like AI replacing/reducing some jobs and forms of art, no matter what words they use to describe their feelings (or how you choose to paraphrase those words).

That’s false. It’s very easy to become confused about the point, when anti-AI folks in general don’t spend their time attacking companies… What I typically see is: - Open source programmers attacking other open source programmers, for any of half a dozen reasons. They rarely sound entirely honest. - Artists attacking hobbyists who like to generate a couple pictures for memes, because it’s cool, or to illustrate stori…

[deleted]

Re: Replacement.ai

#109

Post by reactordev »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

What you end up with is a dozen people owning all the wealth and everyone else owning nothing, resulting in the robots not doing anything because no one is buying anything, resulting in a complete collapse of the economic system the world uses to operate. Mass riots, hunger wars, political upheaval, world war 3. Nuke the opposition before they nuke you.

Re: Replacement.ai

#110

Post by wizardforhire »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

Gonna just play a little mad libs here with your argument…

Personal belief, but AI coming for your children is not a valid argument against AI. If AI can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the parenting. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't AI, it's the structure of how we humans rely on parenting for their children. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and not to stifle innovation by banning AI but by preparing society to move forward.

…

You’re right about one thing within reason… this is what a rationale government should be for… if the government was by the people and for the people.

Addendum for emphasis: …and if that government followed the very laws it portends to protect and enforce…

Post reply on HN