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

141–150 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#141

Post by candiddevmike »

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…

I've seen enough anecdotes about business productivity lately that LLMs is not the solution to their workload struggles. You can't lay off people and expect the remainder + LLMs to replace them.

Re: Replacement.ai

#142

Post by pixelready »

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…

Fascism is what Capitalism does when it thinks it’s gone too far and is at risk of Socialist revolt.

The Corpos don’t need to go mask off, that’s what they pay the politicians for. Left and right is there to keep people from looking up and down.

Re: Replacement.ai

#143

Post by Ray20 »

newsclues wrote: post #65
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

Replacing dirty, dangerous jobs, and allowing people to upskill and work better jobs is one thing. Firing educated workers en mass for software that isn’t as good but cheaper, doesn’t have the same benefits to society at large. What is the goal of replacing humans with robots? More money for the ownership class, or freeing workers from terrible jobs so they can contribute to society in a greater way?

> doesn’t have the same benefits to society at large.

The benefits to society will be larger. Just think about it: when you replace a dirty dangerous jobs, the workers simply have nowhere to go, and they begin to generate losses for society in one form or another. Because initially, they took this dirty, dangerous jobs because they had no choice.

But when you firing educated workers en mass, society not only receives from software all the benefits that it received from workers, but all other fields are also starting to develop because these educated workers are taking on other jobs, jobs that have never been filled by educated workers before. Jobs that are understaffed because they are too dirty or too dangerous.

This will be a huge boost even for areas not directly affected by AI.

Re: Replacement.ai

#144

Post by Kiro »

darthoctopus wrote: post #18
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

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 we should be careful attributing too much idealism to it. The Luddites were not a unified movement and people had much more urgent concerns than thinking about technological progress from a sociocentric perspective. Considering the time period with the Napoleonic Wars as backdrop I don't think anyone can blame them for simply being angry and wanting to smash the machines that made them lose their job.

Re: Replacement.ai

#145

Post by dragonwriter »

overfeed wrote: post #123
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…

Where would governments find the money to expand safety nets by 2-3 orders of magnitude, while losing most income tax inflows?

> Where would governments find the money to expand safety nets by 2-3 orders of magnitude, while losing most income tax inflows?

Well, it would start by not tax-favoring the (capital) income that remains and would have to have grown massively relatively to the overall economy for that to have occurred.

(In fact, it could start by doing that now, and the resulting tax burden shift would reduce the artificial tax incentive to shift from labor intensive to capital intensive production methods, which would, among other things, buy more time to deal with the broader transition if it is actually going to happen.)

Re: Replacement.ai

#146

Post by pojzon »

risyachka wrote: post #135
overfeed wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where would governments find the money to expand safety nets by 2-3 orders of magnitude, while losing most income tax inflows?

You need income to: - buy house - get food - buy clothes - medical care - buy nice things if robots are that advanced that can do most of the jobs - the cost of goods will be close to zero. government will product and distribute most of the things above and you mostly won't need any money, but if you want extra to travel etc there will always be a bunch of work to do - and not 8 hours per day

Rich ppl doing something to undermine their status as „the better ones”?

This is not going to happen.

We all know a post-apocalyptic world is what awaits us.

More or less Elysium is the future if ppl will still behave the same way they do now.

And I doubt ppl will change in a span of 100 years.

Re: Replacement.ai

#147

Post by lwhi »

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 more existential.

Why are people even doing the jobs?

In a huge number of cases people have jobs that largely amount to nothing other than accumulation of wealth for people higher up.

I have a feeling that automation replacement will make this fact all the more apparent.

When people realise big truths, revolutions occur.

Re: Replacement.ai

#148

Post by beeflet »

risyachka wrote: post #135
overfeed wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where would governments find the money to expand safety nets by 2-3 orders of magnitude, while losing most income tax inflows?

You need income to: - buy house - get food - buy clothes - medical care - buy nice things if robots are that advanced that can do most of the jobs - the cost of goods will be close to zero. government will product and distribute most of the things above and you mostly won't need any money, but if you want extra to travel etc there will always be a bunch of work to do - and not 8 hours per day

There are still capital costs in producing the robots and infrastructure. So the costs of goods will be nonzero.

>government will product and distribute most of the things above and you mostly won't need any money

So basicially what you are saying is that a government monopoly will control everything?

Re: Replacement.ai

#149

Post by steve_adams_86 »

garganzol wrote: post #118

It seems that some tech people are prone to ludditism. No wonders here, AI is sharper and brighter than most tech workers usually are. Instead of facing the new reality, some people start to talk about the bubbles, AI being sloppy, etc. Which is not generally true; mostly it's the users' psychological projection of their own traits and the resulting fear-induced smear campaigns. The phenomenon is well described in ps…

When people mention the Luddites, they almost always do so incorrectly as you have here. Luddites weren't afraid of technology because it was better than them. In fact, it was worse. There was no projection. The phenomenon you're describing here was not a Luddite phenomenon. They were concerned about how machines would disrupt employment, wages, product quality, work autonomy, power imbalances, and working conditions. We should be, too.

It's also more nuanced than you seem to think. Having the work we do be replaced by machines has significant implications about human purpose, identity, and how we fit into our societies. It isn't so much a fear of being replaced or made redundant by machines specifically; it's about who we are, what we do, and what that means for other human beings. How do I belong? How do I make my community a better place? How do I build wealth for the people I love?

Who cares how good the machine is. Humans want to be good at things because it's rewarding and—up until very recently—was a uniquely human capability that allowed us to build civilization itself. When machines take that away, what's left? What should we be good at when a skill may be irrelevant today or in a decade or who knows when?

Someone with a software brain might immediately think "This is simply another abstraction; use the abstraction to build wealth just as you used other skills and abilities to do so before", and sure... That's what people will try to do, just as we have over the last several hundred years as new technologies have emerged. But these most recent technologies, and the ones on the horizon, seem to threaten a loss of autonomy and a kind of wealth disparity we've never seen before. The race to amass compute and manufacturing capacity among billionaires is a uniquely concerning threat to virtually everyone, in my opinion.

We should remember the Luddites differently, read some history, and reconsider our next steps and how we engage with and regulate autonomous systems.

Re: Replacement.ai

#150

Post by candiddevmike »

risyachka wrote: post #135
overfeed wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where would governments find the money to expand safety nets by 2-3 orders of magnitude, while losing most income tax inflows?

You need income to: - buy house - get food - buy clothes - medical care - buy nice things if robots are that advanced that can do most of the jobs - the cost of goods will be close to zero. government will product and distribute most of the things above and you mostly won't need any money, but if you want extra to travel etc there will always be a bunch of work to do - and not 8 hours per day

I'm pretty sure if robots are capable of doing most jobs, the only ones left will be related to prostitution or fluid/tissue/organ donation.
Post reply on HN