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

151–160 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#151

Post by nwatson »

dotancohen wrote: post #114
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…

> This is what government is for, and not to stifle innovation by banning AI but by preparing society to move forward. Many will argue that the purpose of government is not to steer or prepare society, but rather to reflect the values of society. Traditionally, the body that has steered (prepared or failed to prepare) society for impending changes was religion.

Enter the Dominionists, gaining steam now. Not a regime I want to live under. Here's a forty year old article describing the inception of those religious figures close to the current USA administration ... https://banner.org.uk/res/kt1.html

Re: Replacement.ai

#152

Post by eterm »

federiconafria wrote: post #106
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.

In this case the featre isn't unnecessary and would serve a useful purpose if it were just a query. I wouldn't object to AI writing that feature to get it out quickly. I'm not anti-AI entirely.

However, someone has taken a useful feature and has made it worse to shoe-horn in copilot interaction.

Clicking this button also had a side-effect of an email from Github telling me about all the things I could ask copilot about.

The silver lining is that email linked to copilot settings, where I could turn it off entirely.

https://github.com/settings/copilot/features

AI is incredibly powerful, especially for code-generation. But It's terrible ( at current speeds ) for being the main interface into an application.

Human-Computer interaction benefits hugely from two things:

- Speed - Predictability

This is why some people prefer a commandline, and why some people can produce what looks like magic with excel. These applications are predictable and fast.

A chat-bot delivers neither. There's no opportunity to build up muscle-memory with a lack of predictability, and the slowness of copilot makes interaction just feel bad.

Re: Replacement.ai

#153

Post by exe34 »

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…

> This is what government is for, and not to stifle innovation by banning AI but by preparing society to move forward.

The AI will belong to the parasite class who will capture all the profits - but you can't tax them on this, because they can afford to buy the government. So there isn't really a way to fund food and shelter for the population without taking something from the billionaires. Their plans for the future does not include us [0].

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prep...

Re: Replacement.ai

#154

Post by portaouflop »

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…

Specialization is for insects.

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.

Re: Replacement.ai

#155

Post by andai »

https://replacement.ai/complaints

At the bottom of this page, there is a form you can fill out. This website says they will contact your local representative on your behalf. (And forward you any reply.)

Here's the auto-generated message:

I am a constituent living in [state] with urgent concerns about the lack of guardrails surrounding advanced AI technologies. It is imperative that we act decisively to establish strong protections that safeguard families, communities, and our children from potential harms associated with these rapidly evolving systems.

As companies continue to release increasingly powerful AI systems without meaningful oversight, we cannot rely on them to police themselves, especially when the stakes are so high. While AI has the potential to do remarkable things, it also poses significant risks, including the manipulation of children, the development of bioweapons, the creation of deepfakes, and the threat of widespread unemployment.

I urge you to enact strong federal guardrails for advanced AI that protect families, communities, and children. Additionally, please do not preempt or block states from adopting strong AI protections that may be necessary for their residents.

Thank you for your time.

[name]

New York

Re: Replacement.ai

#156

Post by serf »

happytoexplain wrote: post #55
scotty79 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow modern Luddite messaging doesn't communicate that clearly either. Instead of "where's my fair share of AI benefits?" we hear "AI is evil, pls don't replace us".

>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).

>Losing a bunch of jobs in a short period is terrible. Losing a bunch of careers in a short period is a catastrophe.

'careers' is so ambiguous as to be useless as a metric.

what kind of careers? scamming call centers? heavy petrochem production? drug smuggling? cigarette marketing?

There are plenty of career paths that the world would be better off without, let's be clear about that.

Re: Replacement.ai

#157

Post by beeflet »

fragmede wrote: post #103
orourke wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the old times, this was a "want" because the only people without work were those unqualified or unable to work. In the new times, it will be a "need" because everyone will be unemployed, and no one will be able to work competitively.

Re: Replacement.ai

#158

Post by dragonwriter »

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

> if robots are that advanced that can do most of the jobs - the cost of goods will be close to zero.

No, the cost of goods will be the cost of the robots involved in production amortized over their production lifetime. Which, if robots are more productive than humans, will not be “near zero” from the point of view of any human without ownership of at least the number of robots needed to produce the goods that they wish to consume (whether that’s private ownership or their share of socially-owned robots). If there is essentially no demand for human labor, it will, instead, be near infinite from their perspective .

Re: Replacement.ai

#159

Post by CamperBob2 »

iwontberude wrote: post #140
yoyohello13 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also agree with this, but I think there is a need to slow the replacement, by a bit, to reduce the short term societal harm and allow society to catch up. Robots can’t do the jobs if society collapses due to unrest. Progress is great obviously, but progress as fast as possible with no care about the consequences is more motivated by money, not the common good.

What you mean you don’t want to take a Great Leap Forward?

A Great Leap Forward is what you get when you give a few fanatical ideologues too much power. I don't see anything in my history book about robots or AI being connected with that. They seem like different topics altogether.

Re: Replacement.ai

#160

Post by exe34 »

harryf wrote: post #112
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 worth (re)watching the 1985 movie Brazil in particular the character of Harry Tuttle, hearing engineer https://youtu.be/VRfoIyx8KfU Neither government or corporations are going to “save us” simply because sheer short termism and incompetence. But the seem incompetence will make the coming dystopia ridiculous

I do wonder if somewhere like China might be better off - they might not have muh freedumb, but their government seems keen to look after the majority and fund things that corporations wouldn't.
Post reply on HN