Programming Still Sucks • Hacker News Board

Re: Programming Still Sucks

#351

Post by CRConrad » Fri, May 15, 2026, 5:48 PM UTC

bluegatty wrote: post #314

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"industry' is not hellbent on destroying society" Think you are missing the point. It is not an actual back room with dudes twirling their mustaches with concrete plans to destroy the world. It is the 'profit motive' that forces a thousand small decisions, that you go along with because you have a mortgage to pay. And all added up they destroy the world.

"And all added up they destroy the world." That is total nonsense. You people have lost your minds, this is worse than a bad reddit thread. Neither 'industry' not 'software' is 'destroying the world'. Also ""Think you are missing the point. It is not an actual back room with dudes twirling their mustaches "" Thanks for the 'deep insight'?!? Do you think you're conversing with a 14 year old, struggling with abstractio…

> Do you think you're conversing with a 14 year old, struggling with abstractions?

Sure sounds like it.

Re: Programming Still Sucks

#352

Post by CRConrad » Fri, May 15, 2026, 5:54 PM UTC

01100011 wrote: post #92

fooqux wrote: post #27

> AI didn't take our jobs. Greed did. Same greed that moved factories to Bangladesh and keeps slaves in cobalt mines in the Congo, wearing a new mask. Tell the nephew to do something else. Anything. It won't save him either, but at least he won't have to pretend the thing destroying his life is a robot. This hit me hard. This article is art. I think I need to sleep on this and read it again in the morning.

Society doesn't owe me over $500k/year for writing some instructions in a cryptic specification language. It's cool that I've been getting that, but I consider that luck and circumstance. When robots take my job I'll go find something else to do. I'm not going to blame evil rich people or some other boogieman.

If you've been getting over $500k/year for years, you are "rich people". So no wonder you're not going to blame yourself for anything.

Re: Programming Still Sucks

#353

Post by CRConrad » Fri, May 15, 2026, 6:03 PM UTC

munksbeer wrote: post #228

stevenlangbroek wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? We produce enough food for 10 billion people every year, there's only 8 billion of us and a billion are hungry. Those seem like legible KPIs for shareholders (i.e. humanity) to pursue, no? And while World GDP is up, it's come at the expensive of the systems we depend on. I want my son to live on a livable planet, and not under the constant threat of destitution. And I want that for all children, not just mine.

Everyone wants that. But people on this thread are arguing that technology is reducing our standard of living, which is just factually untrue.

Who was arguing that technology is reducing our material "standard of living"?

There's more to life than one's material standard of living. I think people were mostly talking about the other bits.

Re: Programming Still Sucks

#354

Post by CRConrad » Thu, May 21, 2026, 7:34 PM UTC

krackers wrote: post #294

socalgal2 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greed does not take your jobs, progress does. People don’t hand wash clothing for money because we have machines to do that now. We don’t need people delivering news papers because the news is delivered digitally. AI is no different. “IF” your job can be automated away or made more efficient it will. That might not be a benefit for your but it’s a benefit to society at large Note: the above is not claiming AI or LLM…

Note that as I understand the main claim of Marx is that the efficiency and productivity gains from automation don't actually go to the laborer, they're captured by the "capital owner". Example being how despite all the automation we're all still working 8 hr days, 5 days a week just to get by. Now of course there's also jevon's "paradox" here, and the automation does allow us to support a larger population so in tha…

Yes, logically / mathematically it seems it must be: Those additional people also contribute their 40h/wk, so more work gets done in total. That should be sufficient to support even more more people, not just more people, if they're all also more productive.

Or, IOW, "productivity" is a per-capita measure, so the total number of people doesn't factor in. (Or perhaps rather, gets factored out?) Anyway: People becoming "more productive" means each one producing more per hour — or per 40 hours — than before, so it's weird that they still need to work just as much as before, only to maintain the standard of living they had before.

(Running faster and faster, just to stay where they are... Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.)