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

371–380 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#371

Post by jimnotgym »

warent wrote: post #339
beeflet wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a bug, it is a law of nature. The world has limited resources, time and labor being one of them. The technology proposes a source of labor for the elites so abundant that they will not need to trade their wealth with the eaters. However much resources you consume, it will be too much to buy for your labor. You will be priced out of existence.

Elites unilaterally claiming and reaping the benefits of automation (i.e. consolidation of wealth) is not a law of nature.

Yet the elite won't share that benefit until someone makes them. History makes me think that won't happen until hunger motivates the masses from their apathy.

Re: Replacement.ai

#372

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

lwhi wrote: post #334
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another interesting point: If someone think that robots can be a better partner, then you also no longer understand what it means to be human. Maybe it depends on what you want in a relationships. AI is sycophantic and that could help people who might have trust issues with humans in general or the other sex (which is happening way more than you might think in younger generations, whether that's involuntary celebates…

I really don't buy the idea of AI helping with 'X' issue, by becoming a surrogate, because at it's root this is still avoidance. It's not solving the problem, it's diverging away from it.

That is what I wrote if I wasn't clear. Thanks for putting it in clear words I suppose

I 100% agree. I mean that was what I was trying to convey I guess if I didn't get side tracked thinking about govt regulation but yeah I agree completely.

It's sort of self sabotage but hey one thing I have come to know about humans is that judging them for things is gonna push them even further into us vs them, we need to know the reasons behind why people feel so easy to conform to llm's. I guess sycophancy is the idea. People want to know that they are right and the world is wrong and most people sometimes don't give a fuck about other problems and if they do, then they try to help and that can involve pointing to reality. AI just delays it by saying something sycophantic which drives a person even further into the hole.

I guess we need to understand them. Its become a reality dude, there are people already marrying chatbots or what not, I know you must have heard of these stories...

We are not talking about something in the distinct future, its happening as we speak

I think the answer to why is desperation. There are so many things broken in the society in dating that young people feel like being alone is better and chatbots to satisfy whatever they are feeling.

I feel like some people think they deserve love and there's nothing wrong with that but then its also at the same time that you can't expect any person to just love you at the same time, they are right in thinking about themselves too. So those people who feel like they deserve love flock to chatbot which showers them sycophancy and fake love but people are down bad for fake love as well, they will chase anything that resembles love, even if its a chatbot.

Its a societal problem I suppose, maybe internet fueled it accidentally because we fall in love with people over just texts so we have equated a person to texts and thus love, and now we have got clankers writing texts and fellow humans intrepreting it as love.

Honestly, I don't blame them but I sympathesize with them. They just need someone to tell their day to. Underputting them isn't the answer but talking with them and asking them to take professional therapy as well in the process could be great but so many people can't afford therapy that they go to LLM's so that's definitely something. We might need to invest some funding to make therapy more accessible for everybody I guess.

Re: Replacement.ai

#373

Post by intended »

sincerely wrote: post #9

I kind of get it, but at the same time...isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology? It feels like somehow we should have figured out how to cope with the "but what about the old jobs" problem

The idea is that there will be newer jobs that come up.

The issue is that there will be no one earning money except the owners of OpenAI.

Take outsourcing - the issue in developed nations was underemployment and the hollowing out of industrial centers. You went from factory foreman to burger flipper. However, it did uplift millions out of poverty in other nations. So net-net, we employed far more and distributed wealth.

With Automation, we simply employ fewer people, and the benefits accrue to smaller groups.

And above all - these tools were built, essentially by mass plagiarism. They train even now, on the random stuff we write on HN and Reddit.

TLDR: its not the automation, its the wealth concentration.

Re: Replacement.ai

#374

Post by bittercynic »

didibus wrote: post #363
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…

> Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them. -- Frank Herbert, Dune The "government" is just the set of people who hold power over others. Those who will own machines that can match humans will have unprecedented power over others. In effect they'll grow more and more to be the government. Even now, compan…

>The "government" is just the set of people who hold power over others.

Often, yes, but in a more functional society it would be the mechanism we collectively use to prevent a few people from amassing excessive wealth and power.

Re: Replacement.ai

#375

Post by EgregiousCube »

onraglanroad wrote: post #323
EgregiousCube wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you sign your offer letter, you're entering into an employment contract. What you're describing is regulatory limitations on what that contract can say, and how different contracts can have different terms.

Now from what you've said I think they might be right. You don't get a full contract that you sign that details your job, leave entitlement etc in the US?

We get that - it’s generally right there on the offer letter, often supplemented by a handbook that it refers to.

Re: Replacement.ai

#376

Post by 8note »

skybrian wrote: post #117
reactordev wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you end up with is a dozen people owning all the wealth and everyone else owning nothing, resulting in the robots not doing anything because no one is buying anything, resulting in a complete collapse of the economic system the world uses to operate. Mass riots, hunger wars, political upheaval, world war 3. Nuke the opposition before they nuke you.

That’s one scenario, but there are others. There are lots of open-weight models. Why wouldn’t ownership of AI end up being widely distributed? Mabybe it's more like solar panels than nuclear power plants?

the ai isnt the useful thing, the stuff you can do with it is.

if your job is replaced by ai, you having ai at home doesnt change whether you're making money or not.

the capital owner gets their capital to work more effectively, and you without capital don't get that benefit

Re: Replacement.ai

#378

Post by AaronAPU »

relativeadv wrote: post #330
nadermx wrote: post #314

What I struggle with is how I'm writing this on a phone, in the back seat of an uber, en route to breakfast. Not even a king could have this level of comfort. While reading the library of alexandria. All I need is desire or will power to do anything, and direct an AI to do it for free. Yet, the future looks bleak.

Think a bit harder on your statement. You'll get there eventually.

We have the power to buy 50 lbs of fentanyl and drip it into our veins continuously for months experiencing perfect bliss. Such great fortune, why would we resist it.

Re: Replacement.ai

#379

Post by jarjoura »

everdrive wrote: post #171

[flagged]

Hah. You say this in such a way that you leave out the possibility that robots are actually just coming for you. Robots can do you, better and/or faster than your partner. Who cares if they're coming for your partner if you can equally have a robot make you feel and experience things you could only imagine.

Re: Replacement.ai

#380

Post by 010101010101 »

bittercynic wrote: post #374
didibus wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them. -- Frank Herbert, Dune The "government" is just the set of people who hold power over others. Those who will own machines that can match humans will have unprecedented power over others. In effect they'll grow more and more to be the government. Even now, compan…

>The "government" is just the set of people who hold power over others. Often, yes, but in a more functional society it would be the mechanism we collectively use to prevent a few people from amassing excessive wealth and power.

Those two things don’t sound mutually exclusive to me.
Post reply on HN