Live data from Hacker News

What will be left for us to work on?

normaltech.ai

211–220 of 291 posts

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#211
post #208
post #59

You need to first address 1)What is work? 2)Why we need to work? Animals don't "work". Not atleast for their own sake. If there is enough green pasture and water around, they don't even migrate to other places. So if work is meant to provide food and shelter and if machines can ensure that, humans don't need to "work". Wealth is only a reserve capacity to help future generations so that they don't need to work for th…

Only if you buy the fairy tale that the machines will be our nursemaids and that the powerful will forget their obsession with controlling and exploiting others.

> the powerful will forget their obsession with controlling and exploiting others I do find this line of reasoning overly simplistic

The drive some individuals have to control / exploit others isn't limited to the rich, they're just in a better position to exercise it

There are people who have absolutely no interest in what other people around them are doing; there are others who will move heaven and earth to help those around them whenever they can, even at the expense of their own interests; others still who can't help but compare themselves to everyone and make it everyone else's problem if they find themselves lacking; and yet others who at all costs want people to afford them "respect" which when you drill into it means stroking their ego

I'm sure we've all experienced petty individuals who've been granted just enough power that they can gain personal satisfaction from leveraging it to make themselves feel better at the expense of all other considerations

These are all just some of the many flavours of humanity

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#212
post #70
post #59

You need to first address 1)What is work? 2)Why we need to work? Animals don't "work". Not atleast for their own sake. If there is enough green pasture and water around, they don't even migrate to other places. So if work is meant to provide food and shelter and if machines can ensure that, humans don't need to "work". Wealth is only a reserve capacity to help future generations so that they don't need to work for th…

This. Before we worry about how much work there is left, we have to define what work is "to be done." We're already at a point where an incredible amount of work done isn't strictly "necessary." It's not growing food, it's not making clothing, it's not building houses, or providing other basic needs and comforts... How many man-hours go into various parts of the advertising distribution chain? Though a certain fracti…

> How many man-hours go into various parts of the advertising distribution chain?

Not that much. AI is already heavily automating advertising and has been for a long time. And a lot of activity that was previously exposed to untargeted passive advertising - like TV - has shifted to mediums that don't have any, like Netflix (for most subscribers).

And as you note, advertising isn't useless. It's how people find out about things they didn't know they wanted.

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing my point; if you have no value other than unthinking manual labour to offer the world, why would the world keep you alive? "Work" doesn't exist to keep people busy, it exists to keep them alive.

> why would the world keep you alive? I don't buy this. Tons of people in the West live on welfare and don't contribute shit to the economy, they are net takers. No one is plotting to kill them, in fact they're (arguably) getting more than they did 50 years ago and definitely more a 100 years ago. We live in democracies, not in a dystopian nightmare and I don't see why A.I is going to change that dynamic. People vote…

> I don't buy this. Tons of people in the West live on welfare and don't contribute shit to the economy, they are net takers. No one is plotting to kill them, in fact they're (arguably) getting more than they did 50 years ago and definitely more a 100 years ago.

And people had to fight for it. Through voting, yes, but also through strikes, sometimes riots, and some died for it. People all the world fought and died for the right to strike (basically, the right to refuse to work). For the right to organise as groups. For the right to only work 8 hours a day, for the right to a have a weekly day off. For the right to pay for pensions. For the right to have some sort of health insurance.

All over the world. Some still do. Many still don’t have half those rights.

Now, I don’t know about any billionaires specifically. But welfare didn’t fall from the sky. Or anyone’s good grace. It’s all about leverage.

If in doubt, looking back at the late 1800s and early 1900s work and life conditions across the Western world is enlightening.

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#214
post #44

If we were more connected to all the problems that exist in the world, we’d become acutely aware of just how much work there is to do, and we’d eagerly reach for any tool that could help us do more, faster.

AI will also make us faster as exploitation, genocide, and weapons manufacturing.

Our technology has long since surpassed our capacity to understand its impact or to morally restrain its use - we've gone from chivalry to "oops, that was a school, oh well"

We will solve problems faster though, but we aren't showing signs that AI is making us better humans, and that is the problem.

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#215

The very question is biased toward the idea that “something is coming”, as if we’re heading to some technological inevitability. I don’t see it happening. This whole “it’s coming” vibe is the narrative attached to the technology, it has nothing to do with the technology itself. It seems like people who buy it are trapped in the fictional reality of a very cheap advertisement, or should I say, propaganda. Your calcula…

It's not "coming", it's already here. I barely code anymore, mate. And that happened in a just a few years, imagine in a few more.

You deprecated yourself in just a few years, so what ? Sure, that's a self inflicted armageddon for yourself, this is nothing on the grand scale of things

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#216
I'm going to copy/paste a comment of mine from another article the other week, as I see the discussion here is trending towards AI productivity and all that kinda stuff.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48743713

---

We've just done an official evaluation at work, using extensive statistics on our gigantic monorepo in a company with ~2000 devs over the course of 2 years, everyone from hardware engineers to regular old frontend engineers. It's a highly profitable and mature public company, and has been for going on a decade at this point without missing a beat. We were given infinite access & budgets to basically any and all AI tooling we could imagine, and we have several "AI Native" teams (whatever the fuck that even means). We're doing agentic coding, we have harnesses of all kind, skills, we have many teams doing spec-driven development, designers using all the various things like Figma Make and access to tools like Devin/Factory Droid/Claude Code/Codex/etc.

This is all to say, we as a company are using AI a lot in all possible corners, but thankfully our leadership isn't schizophrenic and isn't mandating everyone hit token limits or whatever, it's more of a "Let's see what works and what doesn't" type of thing, and we measure a lot of statistics. Nobody here really cares whether LLMs are the next coming of Christ or not, as a company there are many people (even in SLT) that are indifferent to LLMs, and many who are reasonably hyped.

I wish I could link to the actual document we were all shown since it has a beautiful breakdown of the methodology and a fine-grained breakdown of the stats and the categories measured, but in the grand scheme of things, ALL the AI tooling we have implemented (at least on the engineering side of the equation) has contributed to a total of... drum roll please... 7 (seven) Percent overall productivity increase! The most productive teams saw a productivity increase of around 20%, while some teams actually saw drops in productivity into the negative percentage points. My team, none of us really give a shit about AI and we're somewhere in the 3-5% range on certain categories of tasks, which I'd say is a fairly good assessment.

Productivity here is measured in many ways, including but not limited to speed of MR review and merge times, feature/ticket/roadmap closure/delivery, rollback/revert incidence rate, how often people interact with the MR review bots and implement their suggestions/fixes, how many times people check back on AI transcriptions/meeting notes (hint: Nobody looks back on any of it, it's all just noise that gets generated and never actually referenced outside a few extremely rare cases) and many more things I'm forgetting. It is an imperfect number of course, because measuring productivity in engineering is a sisyphean task, but in my opinion it is accurate to the reality on the ground and outside of all the hype and marketing bullshit.

So, I remain thoroughly unconvinced of these personal anecdotes of people being "massively" more productive, especially once you factor in the fact that we now have a 2000EUR budget/month/dev for all the AI tooling, those productivity numbers start looking pathetic once you factor in the costs (which are only increasing as the AI companies need to start recouping the gazillions they've burned). Some teams have started begging to disable coderabbit and other similar tools in their MRs because they're producing nothing but walls of noise that makes reviewing any MR a nightmare of sludging through endless slop of useless bullshit, ours included.

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#217

The very question is biased toward the idea that “something is coming”, as if we’re heading to some technological inevitability. I don’t see it happening. This whole “it’s coming” vibe is the narrative attached to the technology, it has nothing to do with the technology itself. It seems like people who buy it are trapped in the fictional reality of a very cheap advertisement, or should I say, propaganda. Your calcula…

I don't think one could have reasonably turned the tide on agriculture, factories, railroads, or electricity - and a smart person would presumably have seen a lot of the benefits years before they materialized. There's plenty of people alive today who saw most of the current landscape coming decades in advance. Once you've used a BBS or modem, "online banking" is an obvious idea - just a very difficult one to impleme…

I think going from horses to cars is one thing, and going from cars to supercars is a whole other thing. We don't see F1 races and go: "Anyday now I'm going to commute to work in a fraction of the time. Cars can be so fast!". AI is not a categorical technology, it is still a component of the computer revolution, and achieving with it substantially more than we already can today would require the same extreme degree of specialization and constraint narrowing as going from urban driver to racing pilot.

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#218
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s already the case that I’m no longer paid to type source code into a computer, but rather to control agents that do that. There’s still plenty of demand for human expertise and labor. It’s possible that this will change as well. What gives me hope that I won’t be completely useless in the future is Marx’s labor theory of value, which states that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of human labor…

Are you sure there isn't something qualitatively different from general purpose AI and robotics as opposed to the type of automation that Marx knew?

No, of course, you can only ever be certain of that in hindsight, through a historical lens. We’re not there yet. The question is simply whether Marx’s analysis was abstract and general enough at that point to still hold up in our present day, despite the changed circumstances. It’s surprisingly common for Marx’s analysis to become even more accurate later on than it was in his own time. But I can’t say whether anything has actually changed so fundamentally that it violates the underlying assumptions of his theory.

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#219

The other issue is Gen Z and Gen A are now very much opposed to AI. I'm wondering with those two sets of generations who already have a very negative view of AI, how AI can survive that coming tsunami of change. According to WRITER’s 2026 Enterprise Adoption Survey, 44% of Gen Z employees admit to sabotaging their company's AI strategy in at least one way compared to 29% of employees overall. Sabotage behaviours incl…

Are they really opposed to AI or are they just opposed to anything that old people do/like, just like every generation? The moment they get their own AI that us dinosaurs don't understand they'll be all over it.

> compared to 29% of employees overall

That seems a rather high baseline, maybe even more significant than younger generations putting another 50% on top of it as they are wont to do.

Re: What will be left for us to work on?

#220
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Before we worry about how much work there is left, we have to define what work is "to be done." We're already at a point where an incredible amount of work done isn't strictly "necessary." It's not growing food, it's not making clothing, it's not building houses, or providing other basic needs and comforts... How many man-hours go into various parts of the advertising distribution chain? Though a certain fracti…

> How many man-hours go into various parts of the advertising distribution chain? Not that much. AI is already heavily automating advertising and has been for a long time. And a lot of activity that was previously exposed to untargeted passive advertising - like TV - has shifted to mediums that don't have any, like Netflix (for most subscribers). And as you note, advertising isn't useless. It's how people find out ab…

Alphabet and Meta, two of the largest firms to ever exist by market capitalization, revenues and profits, are largely sustained by their online advertisement products.

I don't think your assessment that this is mostly automated stands in the face of the number of man-hours both of these companies purchase each year.

Post reply on HN