41–50 of 156 posts
This feels pedantic but there was a survey posted on HN very recently across the US which showed that 60% dislike it. This means a whopping 40% of people either want it or don't care. I can tell you from observing high schoolers for a week, everybody there was using it, teachers and students alike. Do they like it? I don't know, but they are using it. The numbers against it aren't as big as the most vocal critics wou…
An alternative theory: people care deeply about art, and the people who make it: artists, musicians, writers. This is a large part of what gives out society meaning, and even for people who don't think deeply about it, we intuitively understand that these artists (outside of a lucky few) get very little back compared to the effort and passion they put in, and the value they add to society. And suddenly, here come all…
Is it unfair and does it suck that creatives aren't getting paid? Yes. But this is nothing new and I don't know how I feel that they deserve special compensation when people work their entire lives for pennies to support their families. It is though the artist is thought of as superior because "creativity" but other jobs are seen as lesser. I don't find the same uproar on HN when those jobs were shit and have been. It's when it touches us, the creatives, that we care. I don't feel that way.
If you want to put your heart into something, the output is what you created, artists have often not worried about compensation or recognition because often they don't get it. You have to do it because you want to, and nothing has changed from that perspective.
This feels pedantic but there was a survey posted on HN very recently across the US which showed that 60% dislike it. This means a whopping 40% of people either want it or don't care. I can tell you from observing high schoolers for a week, everybody there was using it, teachers and students alike. Do they like it? I don't know, but they are using it. The numbers against it aren't as big as the most vocal critics wou…
Outside software, AI is synonymous with low quality and low effort. As in, "I don't care enough about you to bother with you myself, I'll have the AI do it". Covers news articles, emails, customer service, products, art, jobs, etc. The actual quality of the AI output is irrelevant.
The actual quality of the AI output is what created that reputation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Within software too.
At AIs absolute best (rarely) it builds software like a very competent 9-5er. It's fine, it works, it's largely inoffensive. It never does anything interesting or inspired. It never gets halfway into building something and then questions the entire premise of your app. It's automated milquetoast.
If only middle management and c-suite knew that
It's also peak "tech hubris". The broader world has largely complained about Silicon Valley's "we know better than you" attitude for a long time, and the push for AI/LLMs is that attitude on steroids.