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

What young workers are doing to AI-proof themselves

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 418 posts

Re: What young workers are doing to AI-proof themselves

#381

Post by viccis »

Hasslequest wrote: post #373
viccis wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You need to go to college to get a piece of paper saying you did. If you were passionate about computer programming, you can do it in your free time while you flip burgers or do whatever you need to survive This is a naive view of the average (or even above average) person's approach to learning, as well as an overly cynical read on the intellectually motivating atmosphere that comes from earnestly engaging in an ac…

It's not naive. I've been to college. To call it intellectually demovating is an understatement

Unless you were unfortunate enough to go during peak covid years, then that was just a skill issue. If it was truly beneath you, you could have been writing and publishing papers.

Re: What young workers are doing to AI-proof themselves

#382

Post by BrenBarn »

sofixa wrote: post #254
BrenBarn wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, although "progressive taxes" can be construed more broadly. Taxes on unrealized capital gains would be a start.

> Taxes on unrealized capital gains would be a start A start to what? There is no way of taxing unrealised capital gains that makes sense. You're taxing theoretical value that may or may not actually exist. Rebates (e.g. you're taxed on theoretical current value, but when you realise the actual gain, you get back the difference if there is any) just moves the problem around, makes everything complicated, and penalise…

> You're taxing theoretical value that may or may not actually exist.

If it's real enough to, say, use it as collateral for a loan, it's real enough to tax.

> penalises attempting growth

There is a lot of growth going on that should absolutely be penalized.

Re: What young workers are doing to AI-proof themselves

#383

Post by BrenBarn »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #361
Scarblac wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not hard. Tax the amount the stocks are valued at at january 1. Make exceptions for investments in illiquid things.

This would destroy every retirement investment vehicle for the middle class more than it would affect the 1%

That can be mitigated by setting high thresholds on the whole process (e.g., the tax doesn't apply if your total net worth is under $10 million).

Re: What young workers are doing to AI-proof themselves

#384

Post by BrenBarn »

sofixa wrote: post #324
Scarblac wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not hard. Tax the amount the stocks are valued at at january 1. Make exceptions for investments in illiquid things.

Ok, and on the 2nd the price crashes, company goes bankrupt, stock is worth zero. You were taxes on theoretical value that you can't sell at to pay that tax. What then?

For me, a lot of these issues become immaterial if the threshold is high enough. If the threshold for a particular tax is assets over $100 million, or a billion, then the answer can just be "you are totally screwed" and I'm basically fine with that. If you don't want that risk, just don't get that rich.

Re: What young workers are doing to AI-proof themselves

#385

Post by jazzpush2 »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #143
jazzpush2 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just your experience, though. It reflects mine, before I went to elite companies, where it is quite normal for people to live-and-breath software, at almost all hours.

And by definition most developers don’t work at “elite” companies. I hope you don’t call your average FAANG and adjacent “elite”. And if you think that is normal, it’s honestly kind of sad.

I've worked at FAANG, yes, as well as one of the top two frontier AI labs, quant, and now, in a similar role doing very technical research.

Do you not think it's considered "elite" to e.g. work at such companies in highly technical roles in the same way that a PhD at Stanford is considered "elite"? As a holder of the latter, I do. If not, what would you consider an "elite" team?

Maybe you think the statement was pretentious, but your response: "I hope you don’t call your average FAANG and adjacent “elite” - that's sad" is, truly, the most pretentious thing I've ever read on this site. So I'll ask: what do you consider elite?

Re: What young workers are doing to AI-proof themselves

#386

Post by jazzpush2 »

bumblehean wrote: post #150
jazzpush2 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just your experience, though. It reflects mine, before I went to elite companies, where it is quite normal for people to live-and-breath software, at almost all hours.

>before I went to elite companies, where it is quite normal for people to live-and-breath software, at almost all hours. Honest question: Do they actually _want_ to live-and-breathe software, or do they work in a highly competitive and highly compensated environment where doing that is implicitly required?

Defintely a mix, though I agree with you that the majority fall under, "they work in a highly competitive and highly compensated environment where doing that is implicitly required."

Re: What young workers are doing to AI-proof themselves

#387

Post by ev1enet »

I'm 20 without a degree, and I am currently working full-time, so I think I have something to add to this conversation.

I wanted to go into tech or commercial aviation as a kid. After COVID I got a reality check on aviation, so decided to aim for SWE. The plan was to study Maths, CompSci and Physics in my country's equivalent of HS, then aim for Physics/CS at uni.

In Spring 2022 (about 6 months before the release of ChatGPT) I realised where things were headed and decided to go into entertainment tech instead, after already completing my first year of college. I'd been volunteering at a music venue as a technician for a few years and it seemed like a good pivot. I dropped out, went to an arts college and studied production, then got a job as a technician at a theatre. After a few false-starts and a while of freelancing as a photographer/technician, I got offered a few full-time positions, ended up taking one in Event AV (events meaning industry expos like CES) - great pay, growing industry, and not really under threat from AI. Everything that can go online has gone online already, but it turns out that businesspeople still like meeting up in-person. I still get to work with awesome technology, but I'm on my feet and working with my hands too. It's different. I'm probably making less money than I would have made in tech 5-10 years ago, but I'm making more money than a few of my friends straight out of CS degrees now.

A lot of my friends are still studying CS, Media, Arts, Languages, and I am glad to be in the position I'm in. I think AI is decimating the value of a degree, and the HE landscape will change a lot in the next decade.

Time will tell if it was a good move, but I think it'll be a while before an LLM can fly panels or coil cable. I'm happy for now.

Re: What young workers are doing to AI-proof themselves

#388

Post by weatherlite »

time0ut wrote: post #11
striped_hash wrote: post #4

I don’t think kids should be insulating from AI. The examples in this article suggest for example that some people are dropping out of college and going into trade schools. I get that society needs electricians and construction workers and new software graduates are finding it difficult to get jobs. But having had a moderately successful career building software, I tend to think there is a lot of scope for the $40 tr…

Optimistically, I hope it filters out the people who were only interested in it for the money. When I was in school, decades ago now, very few people went into CS compared to other majors. Everyone I knew going into it did it because they loved it. I would have done it regardless of the career opportunities because I want to build stuff. Interviewing candidates over the years since then, my experience has been there…

> Maybe if we get very lucky, it will go back to a relatively few passionate people building stuff because it is cool?

This is a really narrow way to look at it and define it lucky. What you describe will absolutely be a shitstorm for everyone - passionate workers and non passionate alike. Management doesn't care about your passion, it cares about the bottom line. Lots of folks will get fired - passionate people as well, or see their salaries cut and their job security evaporate. There's no winners in the scenario you described other than the employers.

Re: What young workers are doing to AI-proof themselves

#389

Post by notrustincloud »

bloppe wrote: post #379
alistairSH wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you're not drawing a salary/wages, how the heck are you buying groceries or paying the mortgage? You'd need to turn houses over very quickly/regularly for this to work...? I'm not debating that tradespeople can make good money - that absolutely can. But, that's the exception not the norm... The average plumber or electrician in the US earns about $65k/year... that's about 2/3 (or less) of an entry level progra…

Someone with savings could take advantage. Medicaid is not actually means-based. It's income-based. In many states like California, so is SNAP. So a multi-millionaire can actually get free health care and $300/mo for food as long as they don't have income that year. Spend that time working on something that won't pay off for a few years, and you get a ton of benefits, even though you're already rich. It's pretty bonk…

Except for the fact that the application paperwork requires disclosure of assets, even an insurable collection qualifies against a 'lack of income', and will need to be declared. Failure to disclose risks committing fraud, subject to recovery of assistance and prosecution. So, no, not really.

Re: What young workers are doing to AI-proof themselves

#390

Post by aa-jv »

rwyinuse wrote: post #251
aa-jv wrote: post #231

tl;dr - knowing things is no longer competitive in the job market. Only doing things is competitive.

Which means at least 50% of the university degrees are no longer competitive, since the focus in those studies is just on the knowledge side.

Yes indeed, but honestly I've felt that its been the case for decades even before the Internet ..
Post reply on HN