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

AI doesn’t reduce work, it intensifies it

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 329 posts

Re: AI doesn’t reduce work, it intensifies it

#171

Post by Flavius »

co_king_3 wrote: post #121
Flavius wrote: post #69

This intensification is really a symptom of the race to the bottom. It only feels 'exhausting' for people who don't want to lose their job or business to an agent; for everyone else, the AI is just an excuse to do less.

I'm sorry but if you're losing your job to this shit you were too dumb to make it in the first place. Edit: Not to mention, this is what you get for not unionizing earlier. Get good or get cut.

That’s a simplistic take. Displacement isn't about being "dumb", it's about unit economics. A company will replace a brilliant person with a good enough AI if it costs 10% of the salary. The "smart" people who are keeping their jobs are exactly the ones Simon is talking about. They’re being "forced" to work more to prove their value against a machine that never sleeps. That’s the intensification.

Re: AI doesn’t reduce work, it intensifies it

#173

Post by croisillon »

lelanthran wrote: post #170
fhd2 wrote: post #4

I feel agentic development is a time sink. Previously, I'd have an idea, sit on it for a while. In most cases, conclude it's not a good idea worth investing in. If I decided to invest, I'd think of a proper strategy to approach it. With agentic development, I have an idea, waste a few hours chasing it, then switch to other work, often abandoning the thing entirely. I still need to figure out how to deal with that, fo…

> With agentic development, I have an idea, waste a few hours chasing it, then switch to other work, often abandoning the thing entirely. My experience with LLMs is that they will call any idea a good idea, one feasible enough to pursue! Their training to be a people-pleaser overrides almost everything else.

it might depend how you word it, i specifically asked about a caldav and a firefox sync solution, explaining how much difficulty-adverse i was, and i have been berated both times

Re: AI doesn’t reduce work, it intensifies it

#174

Post by elicash »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #54
singularfutur wrote: post #10

This is not a technology problem. AI intensifies work because management turns every efficiency gain into higher output quotas. The solution is labor organization, not better software.

The leftist thought process never ceases to amaze me: "This time, its going to be the correct version of socialism."

You can be libertarian and a capitalist and still be pro-union. At the end of the day, a Collective Bargaining Agreement is just a private contract between two parties. It can be a way to raise wages without government setting a minimum price for labor.

While I'd agree most of its proponents (like myself) also favor other left-wing policies, I'm just saying it doesn't need to be.

Re: AI doesn’t reduce work, it intensifies it

#175

Post by lelanthran »

yason wrote: post #13
rvz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do not know what you want to build, how to ask the AI what you want and are unable to tell what the correct requirements are; then it becomes a waste of time and money. More importantly, As the problem becomes more complex, it then matters more if you know where the AI falls short. Case study: Security researchers were having a great time finding vulnerabilities and security holes in Openclaw. The Openclaw cre…

> If you do not know what you want to build That describes the majority of cases actually worth working on as a programmer in the traditional sense of the word. You build something to begin to discover the correct requirements and to picture the real problem domain in question.

> You build something to begin to discover the correct requirements and to picture the real problem domain in question.

You lose that if the agent builds it for you, though; there is no iteration cycle for you, only for the agent. This means you are missing out on a bunch of learning that you would previously had gotten from actually writing something.

Prior to agents, more than once a week I'd be writing some code and use some new trick/technique/similar. I expect if you feel that there is no programming skills and tricks left for you to learn, then sure, you aren't missing out on anything.

OTOH, I've been doing this a long time, and I still learn new things (for implementation, not design) on each new non-trivial project.

Re: AI doesn’t reduce work, it intensifies it

#176

Post by gitgud »

mrtksn wrote: post #55
taosx wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with the concept of AI being another abstraction layer (maybe) but I feel that's an insult to a CNC machine which is a very precise and accurate tool.

LLMs are quite accurate for programming, these days they almost always create a code that will compile without errors and errors are almost always fixable by feeding the error into the LLM. I would say this is extremely precise text generation, much better than most humans. Just like with CNC though, you need to feed it with the correct instructions. It's still on you for the machined output to do the expected thing.…

> Just like with CNC though, you need to feed it with the correct instructions.

CNC relies on precise formal languages like G-code, whereas an LLM relies on the imprecise natural languages

Re: AI doesn’t reduce work, it intensifies it

#177

Post by latexr »

simonw wrote: post #158
latexr wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems you wrote this at the same time I was responding to someone else. Since I addressed that point in the other reply, I link there and quote the relevant section. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46955703#46958713 > There is value in exploring obvious concepts when you’ve thought about them for longer, maybe researched what others before you had to say on the matter, and you can highlight and improve on all of…

> In your posts I have repeatedly seen you advocate for opposing ideas at different (but not too distant) points in time. One of my core beliefs is that "two things can be true at the same time". I write about opposing ideas because they have their own merits. I believe that most of the criticisms of generative AI are genuine problems. I also believe that generative AI provides incredible value to people who learn ho…

> One of my core beliefs is that "two things can be true at the same time".

Which is, of course, true in some cases and false in others. But again, not what I’m talking about.

> Got any examples that stood out to you of my inconsistency?

Sorry, I don’t. You publish too often and obviously I’m not going to trawl through a sea of posts to find specific examples. I’m not trying to attack you. Again, my initial post was written in empathy; you’re of course free to take it in earnest and reflect on it or ignore it.

Also, I haven’t called you inconsistent. You’re using that word. I’m not saying you’re constantly flip-flopping or anything like that, and it’s not inconsistent to change one’s mind or evolve one’s ideas.

It feels like you’re doing in these comments what I have just described: going in too fast with the replies without really thinking it through, without pausing to understand what the argument is. It’s difficult to have a proper honest conversation if I’m trying to be deliberate towards you but you’re being solely reactive. That is, frankly, exhaustive, and that’s precisely what I’m advocating against.

Re: AI doesn’t reduce work, it intensifies it

#178

Post by metaltyphoon »

dubeye wrote: post #122

Tell that to my family with whom I have been spending a lot more time recently having benefited a lot from increased productivity.

If increased productivity means your output is the same but now you produce it quicker, sure! But lets be honest, this is rarely the case and the “free” time is now filled with more work.

Re: AI doesn’t reduce work, it intensifies it

#179

Post by misiek08 »

jasode wrote: post #89
falloutx wrote: post #29

I am becoming more and more convinced that AI cant be used to make something better than what could have built before AI. You never needed 1000s of engineers to build software anyway, Winamp & VLC were build by less than four people. You only needed 1000s of people because the executive vision is always to add more useless junk into each product. And now with AI that might be even harder to avoid. This would mean the…

, Winamp & VLC were build by less than four people. You only needed 1000s of people because the executive vision is always to add more useless junk into each product. Many types of software have essential complexity and minimal features that still require hundreds/thousands of software engineers. Having just 4 people is simply not enough man-hours to build the capabilities customers desire. Complex software like 3D m…

I will use my right to disagree. Maybe not 4 people everywhere, but if you have product with well thought feature set you create those and then you really don't need 1000s people to just keep it alive and add features one by one.

I - of course - am talking about perfect approach with everyone focused to not f** it up ;)

Re: AI doesn’t reduce work, it intensifies it

#180

Post by gosub100 »

pousada wrote: post #43
falloutx wrote: post #29

I am becoming more and more convinced that AI cant be used to make something better than what could have built before AI. You never needed 1000s of engineers to build software anyway, Winamp & VLC were build by less than four people. You only needed 1000s of people because the executive vision is always to add more useless junk into each product. And now with AI that might be even harder to avoid. This would mean the…

> percentage of good, well planned, consistent and coherent software is going to approach zero So everything stays exactly the same?

No, wealth gets more concentrated. Fewer people on the team will be able to afford a comfortable lifestyle and save for retirement. More will edge infinitesimally closer to "barely scraping by".
Post reply on HN