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

The AI backlash is only getting started

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 272 posts

Re: The AI backlash is only getting started

#211

Post by gruez »

dofm wrote: post #185
gruez wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK that was massively flawed because it doesn't account for time spent doing various household chores or maintenance tasks. If you spent 4 hours making a shirt, that wouldn't count towards "hours worked", but if you worked a 2 hour job to buy a shirt it would.

I mean, you only have to look at actual available salary and hours data to see that factory workers worked at least as long a day and longer than a farm day can even be, and in conditions that were unambiguously worse. But even if this were not true it’s still not a working analogy for AI, which is going to eliminate employment, not just job roles. It’s the whole pitch for AGI.

>I mean, you only have to look at actual available salary and hours data to see that factory workers worked at least as long a day and longer than a farm day can even be, and in conditions that were unambiguously worse.

1. Where's the hours data you're citing?

2. My whole point in the previous comment is that there's more to being a medieval peasant than just plowing the fields. If during the industrial revolution you spent more time in wage employment, but then spent less time on household tasks, that would be captured in the hours data as simply more hours worked, because the latter isn't accounted for in the hours data at all.

Re: The AI backlash is only getting started

#213

Post by fireflash38 »

BeetleB wrote: post #203
fireflash38 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the glut of food and consumer products from AI?

Where was the glut of food and consumer products 4 years into the Industrial Revolution?

The onus is on you to prove the claim that AI is equivalent or better.

But if you're not a troll, from the very fucking start of it there was a boom of products. Like it's practically the definition of it. Are you seriously thinking that they just burned a bunch of coal for fun?

Re: The AI backlash is only getting started

#214

Post by malfist »

beej71 wrote: post #99
dwa3592 wrote: post #64

People have been made to believe by very influential people (dario, sam, elon etc) that AI will replace them. As a result people are getting angry. Who did not see this coming? Why da f*#$ do they have to continue developing a technology which they think will replace droves of people by machines?? There is nothing sexy about it. There is nothing cool about it either. Imagine a taxi driver facing his family knowing he…

I think they just don't care that the people are mad. The equation doesn't include workers. It actively excludes them. Because no sane person would pitch a product that would put you out of work, it seems surprising to us to hear that pitch. But the pitch isn't to us; we're not part of the equation. We're passive listeners between uncaring, unfeeling parties who only value one thing, and that thing ain't us. > The an…

Aside from one health insurance company CEO, why should they care that the common people are angry with them? It doesn't stop them from doing whatever the hell they want. Even if it's illegal (looking at you memphis data center gas generators)

Re: The AI backlash is only getting started

#215

Post by malfist »

dweinus wrote: post #89
estearum wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because people are angry does not make it false. > Why da f*#$ do they have to continue developing a technology which they think will replace droves of people by machines?? Because arms race. Game dynamics and incentive structures don't cease to exist just because someone notices them.

All those devs and data scientists and PhDs make a choice though. They could quit and work somewhere else. Even in a tough market their skills are in demand. They choose to work on this every morning.

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! (from Mario Savio)

Re: The AI backlash is only getting started

#216

Post by rescripting »

tern wrote: post #107

Sadly, I think this is true, and it's starting to seem like my own personal political imperative is to remind people that AI can be insanely personally empowering. Many people around me are just missing the boat, or don't care, but many are also able to finally accomplish all kinds of things they've been barred from in the past. LLMs are best seen, I think, as an imagination amplifier. If you're in the mindset of fin…

This is the exact same sentiment I felt at the dawn of the Internet. I felt it was going to empower individuals, tear down borders and barriers, and bring humanity together.

Instead we ended up with an ad fueled dopamine/outrage slot machine.

We're seeing the same thing happen with AI on a condensed timeframe. Yes, its useful. Yes, it lowers barriers and amplifies what individuals can do, just like the early internet did.

However, the same pattern will repeat itself because the exact same forces that bent the arc of the internet towards its current state haven't gone anywhere; if anything they've just become stronger.

Re: The AI backlash is only getting started

#217

Post by malfist »

gruez wrote: post #29
vitorfblima wrote: post #19

The untold promise of IA is to replace labor. That's probably the only reason why some people are willing to spend trillions of dollars in pursuing this technology. Mere tools would never justify this kind of investment. It's no surprise that people are getting angry, even though many are using AI in their everyday life.

>The untold promise of [tractors] is to replace labor. [...] Mere tools would never justify this kind of investment. How's this any different than say, tractors, or the mechanical loom? After all, agricultural employment went from 90% in the past to 1% today.

> After all, agricultural employment went from 90% in the past to 1% today

And how many years did that take to happen? 3 or 4? That's what the AI companies are promising. 89% of you will be unemployed in the next couple years. All that wealth you'd be making from working will now be going to the company owners and you're out on your own. Good luck!

Re: The AI backlash is only getting started

#218

Post by BeetleB »

fireflash38 wrote: post #213
BeetleB wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where was the glut of food and consumer products 4 years into the Industrial Revolution?

The onus is on you to prove the claim that AI is equivalent or better. But if you're not a troll, from the very fucking start of it there was a boom of products. Like it's practically the definition of it. Are you seriously thinking that they just burned a bunch of coal for fun?

> The onus is on you to prove the claim that AI is equivalent or better.

I never claimed it.

But if we play along, and if I claim AI is equivalent, then once again ... why ask about glut of food and consumer products only a few years in, when that wasn't the case with the Industrial Revolution?

> But if you're not a troll, from the very fucking start of it there was a boom of products.

It began in 1760 in England. Can you compare 1764 with 1760 and itemize this "boom" you speak of?

The changes the Industrial Revolution brought about was slow - it took several decades. Correspondingly, the change in labor took that long as well.

Re: The AI backlash is only getting started

#219

Post by mschuster91 »

malfist wrote: post #214
beej71 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they just don't care that the people are mad. The equation doesn't include workers. It actively excludes them. Because no sane person would pitch a product that would put you out of work, it seems surprising to us to hear that pitch. But the pitch isn't to us; we're not part of the equation. We're passive listeners between uncaring, unfeeling parties who only value one thing, and that thing ain't us. > The an…

Aside from one health insurance company CEO, why should they care that the common people are angry with them? It doesn't stop them from doing whatever the hell they want. Even if it's illegal (looking at you memphis data center gas generators)

> Aside from one health insurance company CEO, why should they care that the common people are angry with them?

Because the frustration builds up. Either we'll see a few more CEOs facing street justice, or we will see candidates getting elected in the primaries that make Sanders and Mamdani combined look like burgeoise (aka, people will actually elect legitimate full on socialists or communists) - and the latter is the actually more dangerous scenario for the ultra rich.

Re: The AI backlash is only getting started

#220

Post by mschuster91 »

baron816 wrote: post #54
vitorfblima wrote: post #19

The untold promise of IA is to replace labor. That's probably the only reason why some people are willing to spend trillions of dollars in pursuing this technology. Mere tools would never justify this kind of investment. It's no surprise that people are getting angry, even though many are using AI in their everyday life.

This is just how productivity works. If people spend less time building a unit of output, then you have more output. People aren’t going to stop wanting stuff. Right now, the world can’t come close to making all the stuff people want. As long as there’s a desire for further consumption, there will be work for people to do.

> People aren’t going to stop wanting stuff.

The danger arises when people want stuff but cannot afford it as there is no more work and what remains of available work (i.e. trades and sex work) is being fought over heavily, driving down the prices.

When that "cannot afford it" extends to necessary stuff such as housing and food too much, eventually there will be a revolution once people are fed up.

The US is in a particularly bad spot here - in contrast with other countries that experience utter poverty (e.g. Afghanistan), most of the population lives in urban areas and has zero opportunity to at least engage in subsistence farming. Whoops.

Post reply on HN