111–120 of 131 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no fallacy here. Just answer me this, instead of going on a rant tangent: Who does the cleaning? And what do they get for it?
They get ownership. The rest is determined from that, since owners collectively decide how much everyone gets paid. (There might need to be further legal restrictions like minimum wage or tying wage to the skill coefficient used to determine rate of gaining ownership - see my other comments.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who decides who gets hired and fired at that company? How is the coefficient determined? Are we talking about amount of work, or how much your work has contributed to the bottom line of the company? I don't see that changing anything. As long as there is private property, and you can sell your work for compensation, the rest pretty much follows.
> How is the coefficient determined? Negotiations, just like salary today, except all sides negotiate with the same leverage. > As long as there is private property, and you can sell your work for compensation And that's why I think work should automatically give ownership by law - and therefore decision making power. See, slavery used to be legal too but then enough people decided it's too exploitative, picked up ri…
As the cleaner you don't have the same leverage as the CEO. There would be no change in leverage at all. That's what you don't seem to understand.
As the cleaner, the only leverage would be that you don't need a job. And if you have that kind of leverage, why would you clean at all?
I am all ears for a new system that could actually work, but I don't think it will come from you. You don't seem to be willing to actually think through things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no fallacy here. Just answer me this, instead of going on a rant tangent: Who does the cleaning? And what do they get for it?
They get ownership. The rest is determined from that, since owners collectively decide how much everyone gets paid. (There might need to be further legal restrictions like minimum wage or tying wage to the skill coefficient used to determine rate of gaining ownership - see my other comments.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nobody is forced to work for your business. This is the root of the fallacy - nobody is forced to work for any particular business but everybody is forced to work for some business since 1) starting a new one is more costly than working for an existing one 2) we'd all end up working for 1-person businesses. It's the same as people claiming they are sovereign citizens. It's a nice ideal but it doesn't work.
No, the mechanism is clear. What I don't understand is your use of the word fallacy. It is not a fallacy, it is the reality. Being an employee is not an ideal. It is the lived reality for most people. So what are you going on about?
a) "You're not forced to do it, you chose it so it's consensual and therefore right."
b) "The value of your work is determined by how much you managed to negotiate."
The issue with a) is that consent has to be informed and between parties with similar bargaining power, neither is true in an employer-employee relationship. Also choice from a limited set of options where some have large artificial upfront costs is not the same as 100% voluntary free choice.
The issue with b) is that the product (both the output sold to customers and the organization producing the output which can be sold by the owners) have value. This value is independent of the negotiated compensation for work.
Hence, arguments ignoring these issues are fallacious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They get ownership. The rest is determined from that, since owners collectively decide how much everyone gets paid. (There might need to be further legal restrictions like minimum wage or tying wage to the skill coefficient used to determine rate of gaining ownership - see my other comments.)
See my other comment. As long as the cleaner cannot fire the CEO, but only the other way around, ownership doesn't mean anything. If you own 0.00001 percent of a company, that gives you about as much power as your vote in a democracy. Probably less so.
> 0.00001
That's a lot of zeros, must be a huge company and/or a very low skill short-time worker. And a small country if one vote is worth more than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See my other comment. As long as the cleaner cannot fire the CEO, but only the other way around, ownership doesn't mean anything. If you own 0.00001 percent of a company, that gives you about as much power as your vote in a democracy. Probably less so.
Why should the collective owners even have a CEO and why should he have the power to fire people? The only way would be if they collectively decided that. There are other ways to structure the company. > 0.00001 That's a lot of zeros, must be a huge company and/or a very low skill short-time worker. And a small country if one vote is worth more than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How is the coefficient determined? Negotiations, just like salary today, except all sides negotiate with the same leverage. > As long as there is private property, and you can sell your work for compensation And that's why I think work should automatically give ownership by law - and therefore decision making power. See, slavery used to be legal too but then enough people decided it's too exploitative, picked up ri…
> Negotiations, just like salary today, except all sides negotiate with the same leverage. As the cleaner you don't have the same leverage as the CEO. There would be no change in leverage at all. That's what you don't seem to understand. As the cleaner, the only leverage would be that you don't need a job. And if you have that kind of leverage, why would you clean at all? I am all ears for a new system that could act…
Generally, on a team, people know who does good work and who works poorly and drags others or the whole team down. Given that, I can see hiring/firing decisions being made at the team level. If a whole team is seen as underperforming/redundant within the organization as a whole, then the team should be given the choice of either making itself leaner or severing cooperation with the rest of the company. This is still hierarchical but bottom up.
Regarding your last sentence and your general attitude, I think I'll sever our communication here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it have to be mutually exclusive? On-the-fly software does not destroy software. Gatekeeping software creation does not mean shoving the existing creators out, it just means creating a larger space that others can occupy, like when 'real' programmers had to slowly permit 'script kiddies' into their spaces. All feels a bit 'old guard' vs 'new guard'.
Not mutually exclusive, but I thought your initial post painted an overly rosy picture with the sentence "[..] allowing millions of people to finally use the devices they've been sitting in front of all these years". I don't think it's happening at this scale. I'll admit I have no real data to back that up, it's just a hunch really. But I find it hard to believe that those people whom previously weren't interested in…
Right now, the greenfield is in how you use these tools. Making a bespoke specialized tool for yourself, or automating onboarding or CICD setups with simple commands or building bridges between "gatekept" existing software and agents are ripe for growth.
I get that we should see this as a good thing, but I see it as entering the last act of a play. Thousands of people are doing these things and coming up with uses for the tools around the clock. Novel uses for the technology will all be exhausted in the next couple of years and there will be less room for innovation than there was before LLMs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I already see people using an agent to write a git commit
What’s wrong with that? The agent session had all the business context, knows what changed, and how we verified it. It takes 5s to turn that into a PR desc vs 10-100x that by hand
How much productivity do we really need? Even at senior dev payscale 2 minutes is like a dollar. The tokens and calls involved in having a 5s commit could close in on 10¢, depending on your contract, the model etc. and that's today's costs. Do remember that my salary is on top of the rates for the LLM, so if the 5s response takes 5s for me to prompt, that's 15s (10 for me 5 for the LLM) that the boss is paying for.
This starts to feel like a billionaire eating ramen noodles just so he can reach his second billion dollars.
Where I work our contract limits API calls, so doing this could result in not being able to use the model when I need it later for something more sophisticated (planning, debugging etc.) than using tooling I'm paid to already know.
This is probably contrary to conventional wisdom (esp among the startup/VC crowd) but: there are very few scenarios where how quickly you build something matters more than the quality of what you build. The AI coding era has brought about an unhealthy obsession with speed of software dev (where "speed" is often measured by fallacious metrics like LOC pushed per day, but that's tangential). And it's obvious why, this…
I think this is very telling of where the message is coming from and how the tools are being sold.
Typically a good thing would be creating more value for a company's consumers, not increasing unemployment. Are these tools to make our lives better or to increase profits for shareholders without taking risks?