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

I wish GPT4 had never happened

chaudhry.notion.site

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#421

Post by isaacremuant »

JasserInicide wrote: post #362
mort96 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has been the promise over and over again, for centuries, and it has consistently not paid off. Where's the predicted society where automation allows us all to work for two hours a day, and spend the rest at leisure? The extra value has gone to enrich the oligarchs rather than to the people. Maybe that should change.

Maybe that should change. I'd love to see that change but we have a populace that directs its energy at attacking itself instead of the people in power

That's by design. The whole point about making you fight between blue or red in the US and other fake dichotomies around the world, and have you overindex on some specific social/Identity issue is so that you don't realize that the divide is socioeconomic and democracy is mostly a sham because whoever gets in power doesn't have to serve the interests of its voters but those of its lobbyists, and that's exactly what happens.

But hey, that's radical talk,sentiment analysis suggests we should disable this kind of speech and keep our head down, lest we be denied more rights...

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#422

Post by sgu999 »

adhocmobility wrote: post #123

Hi everyone, author of the article here. I'm sorry if the article sounds overly pessimistic. I'm not making any claims with this article. I'm not proposing anything either. I do think technological progress is a good thing, even in this case. But I wrote this blog because I did have an emotional response to this technology, and wanted to pen down my thoughts. Its one thing to look at a report about the economic impac…

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I don't understand the harsh comments you received here. Denial is the way others seem to be using to cope with a tech that threatens their precious skills.

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#423

Post by quijoteuniv »

logicalmonster wrote: post #138

1) Chaudry's article is amazing in its lack of creative thinking. If people like Priya can be ~10 times more productive wielding some AI tools, that means that many companies can potentially produce 10 times as many products/services and make more things that will enrich peoples' lives. Though some people in some companies might be laid off, it doesn't necessarily mean that more people will be laid off than new jobs…

I appreciate the perspective shared in the article, but I can't help but find it somewhat egocentric. Firstly, it seems to overlook the fact that Priya was already being exploited in a low-paying job. The article describes the long hours and overwork she endures, but it fails to challenge the status quo of her employment situation. This lack of critical analysis may be indicative of a narrow focus on the negative effects of GPT-4.

Secondly, it appears that the author is using Priya's story as a way to gain self-importance in his blog, painting her as a victim of ChatGPT's progress. While it's essential to address the potential job displacement caused by AI advancements, using an individual's plight as a narrative tool seems rather opportunistic. A more balanced discussion of the broader implications of AI on society and the workforce would have been more informative and less self-centered.

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#424

Post by thih9 »

> GPT4 gave the correct answer in 1/10th the time it would take Priya and cost a lot less

Do we know the actual price of GPT-4? I assumed they’re operating at cost and wanted to advertise the product. Is chatgpt ready to handle high volume of requests at low cost and long term?

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#425

Post by kelseyfrog »

chii wrote: post #239
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #29

The big oversight here is that Priya does not want a job , what Priya wants is an income . The point of life is not working, the point of life is to enjoy it. We should strive to eliminate as many jobs as we possibly can, the less we have to work the better it is. To make this possible we need to find a way to a new system that doesn't directly link labour with income .

> find a way to a new system that doesn't directly link labour with income. that system was called communism, and so far, it has not had any of the success that those envisioning it had wanted. I cannot see how ownership of the output of automation and AI could be distributed evenly. At best, the people being made obsolete would be given food stamps and the barest of life's necessities so they don't die in the street…

> Until the day humanity discovers how to obtain a post-scarcity society, all income must directly be linked to labour.

What are you talking about? Our economic system's very name describes who gets income without they themselves doing labor. The entire point of capitalism is that the capital-owning class gets to profit from the labor of others.

So no, we don't have all income linked to labor. The income of capitalists sure as heck isn't.

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#426

Post by ml_basics »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #167
logicalmonster wrote: post #138

1) Chaudry's article is amazing in its lack of creative thinking. If people like Priya can be ~10 times more productive wielding some AI tools, that means that many companies can potentially produce 10 times as many products/services and make more things that will enrich peoples' lives. Though some people in some companies might be laid off, it doesn't necessarily mean that more people will be laid off than new jobs…

> that means that many companies can potentially produce 10 times as many products/services and make more things that will enrich peoples' lives. This has been the promise over and over again, for centuries, and it has consistently not paid off. Where's the predicted society where automation allows us all to work for two hours a day, and spend the rest at leisure? > Though some people in some companies might be laid…

> Where's the predicted society where automation allows us all to work for two hours a day, and spend the rest at leisure?

Others have already commented on the fact that quality of life has generally increased.

I think it's also worth realizing that over the course of a lifetime people today spend a much smaller fraction of their waking hours engaged in work than before.

100 years ago a typical man in a developed country might have started work aged 14 and then stopped working a few years before death if they were lucky to not die before.

Nowadays even someone "uneducated" would start working at 18, while others might start aged 22 or older. And a common expectation is to have a retirement of 15+ years.

So averaging over a lifetime we do work a lot less as a fraction of our lives than in earlier times.

Edit: numbers were plucked from thin air based on my experiences of my own country, but i guess the general point applies to most developed countries

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#427

Post by qudat »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #167
logicalmonster wrote: post #138

1) Chaudry's article is amazing in its lack of creative thinking. If people like Priya can be ~10 times more productive wielding some AI tools, that means that many companies can potentially produce 10 times as many products/services and make more things that will enrich peoples' lives. Though some people in some companies might be laid off, it doesn't necessarily mean that more people will be laid off than new jobs…

> that means that many companies can potentially produce 10 times as many products/services and make more things that will enrich peoples' lives. This has been the promise over and over again, for centuries, and it has consistently not paid off. Where's the predicted society where automation allows us all to work for two hours a day, and spend the rest at leisure? > Though some people in some companies might be laid…

> This has been the promise over and over again, for centuries, and it has consistently not paid off. Where's the predicted society where automation allows us all to work for two hours a day, and spend the rest at leisure?

The end result of creative destruction is not so we can all work less, it's so things that we value become cheaper, allowing us to reallocate resources to things that are equally or more valuable. It gives rise to new companies and industries that either a) could not work without the new tech, or b) were prohibitively expensive.

The classic example is the fridge. Before it existed there was an entire industry that revolved around transporting blocks of ice. Now imagine all the industries, technological advancements, scientific advancements that would not exist if we didn't have the ability to make a box really really cold, relatively cheaply.

Creative destruction leads to economic growth (increasing the pie), not a society that doesn't have to work 40hours a week.

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#428

Post by satvikpendem »

croes wrote: post #288
satvikpendem wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has been the promise over and over again, for centuries, and it has consistently not paid off. You are working the same number of hours as before (40 ish) because companies are producing 10x as much goods in the same amount of time. If they produced only the same amount, ie 1x, you'd have your 2 hour work day (or more likely be out of a job). It is because companies are producing more stuff that you have a job…

So how come that many people can't afford a house but could 30 years ago? Machines made blue collar work near worthless, except for some crafts. And things like ChatGPT can lower the worth of white collar jobs.

NIMBYism and lack of housing development, whether by government or by corporations. In countries like Japan where housing is not an investment but a depreciating asset, people can buy homes. Because, well, they build enough.

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#429

Post by gjsman-1000 »

neerd wrote: post #98
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn't directly link labour with income Who in their right mind would work if they can get free income, even if small, without having a disability or similar disqualifier? Right now, we are in a worker shortage, and it’s going to get worse as retirements continue. Separating labor from work would cripple living standards and demoralize productive workers.

If this is not decoupled how do you propose people survive when automation makes the vast majority of people permanently unemployable?

Call me retrograde but I would almost be forced to question the automation part here.

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#430

Post by wrs »

vc8f6vVV wrote: post #388
danShumway wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Work" above is being used in a more specific form than you are using it. GP is not referring to all productive work, they are specifically referring to employment on the market. Yes, human beings are better in relationships and better when they help each other, but GP is not talking about abolishing helping other people or doing meaningful things. There are a huge number of things people can do to meaningfully make…

I your work is not producing anything valuable for other people it's void and you will get bored pretty fast, it's a human nature. If it does you can always find a way to monetize it as people need it and ready to share their wealth for something they need. No, it doesn't have to be a work "for a company", but if you can't "make money off of this" it probably means your "work" is only relevant to you, or somebody els…

By this argument, hobbies do not exist.
Post reply on HN