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

Why we don’t use AI

yarnspinner.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#61

Post by danaris »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #52
andrepd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They took our jerbs is a perfectly valid argument for people which face ruin without a jerb. Capitalism is not prepared nor willing to retrain people, drastically lower the workweek, or bring about a UBI sourced from the value of the commons. So indeed, if the promises of AI hold true, a catastrophe is incoming. Fortunately for us, the promises of AI CEOs are unlikely to be true.

This is the bit I get frustrated by - the need for jerbs at all. If we manage to replace all the workers with AI - that's awesome! We will obviously have to work out a system for everyone to get shelter, and food, and so on. But that post-scarcity utopia of everyone being able to do whatever they want with their time and not have to work, that's the goal, right? That's where we want to be. Jerbs are an interim nightm…

But right now, there is no way in hell we're going to get any kind of support for people who lost their jobs to AI. Not in the US, at least.

Look at the current administration. Do you think they would even consider providing anything like UBI?

They actively want to take us down the cyberpunk dystopia route (or even the Christofascist regressive dystopia route...). They want us to become serfs to technofeudal overlords. Or just die, and decrease the surplus population.

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#62

Post by localhoster »

cmcaleer wrote: post #26
localhoster wrote: post #2

I wish. I have just witnessed a engineer on our (small) team push a 4k line change to prod at the middle of the night. His message was: "lets merge and check it after". AI can help good team become better, but for sure it will make bad teams worse. I sorry friends, I think imma quit to farming :$

I don’t really see how this is an AI issue. We use AI all the time for code generation but if you put this on my desk with specific instructions to be light on review and it’s not a joke, I’m probably checking to see if you’re still on probation because that’s an attitude that’s incompatible with making good software. People with this kind of attitude existed long before AI and will continue to exist.

Totally, and im not saying otherwise. I'm saying that it takes the same amount of work to become a good engineering team even with AI. But it takes exponentially less work to bacome worse team. If they say C++ makes it much more easier to shut yourself in the foot, in a similar manner LLMs are hard to aim. If your team can aim properly, you are going to hit more targets more quickly, but if and when you miss, the entire team is in wheelchairs.

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#63

Post by localhoster »

sheeh wrote: post #25
localhoster wrote: post #2

I wish. I have just witnessed a engineer on our (small) team push a 4k line change to prod at the middle of the night. His message was: "lets merge and check it after". AI can help good team become better, but for sure it will make bad teams worse. I sorry friends, I think imma quit to farming :$

There’s a weird thing going on - I can see value in using LLM’s to put something together so you can see it rather than investing time to do it properly initially. But to just copy, paste and move on… terrible.

Thats the gist of it. I've been trying to tell the founders that if we invest 2x more time on proper planning we will get 20x more outcomes in return. It's as simple as that, its not about just writing stuff and pushing, its about understanding the boundaries of what you make, how it talks with other stuff, and what are the compromises you are willing to take in return for faster speeds.

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#64

Post by 9JollyOtter »

jesse__ wrote: post #41
9JollyOtter wrote: post #23

> This comment pops up a few times, often from programmers. Unfortunately, because of how messy the term AI now is, the same concerns still apply. Your adoption helps promote the companies making these tools. People see you using it and force it onto others at the studio, or at other workplaces entirely. From what we’ve seen, this is followed by people getting fired and overworked. If it isn’t happening to you and yo…

Strongly agree. It's like saying using a knife to prepare dinner is immoral because some people stab other people. I'm highly skeptical of AI, but that particular argument makes the whole article fall pretty flat to me.

Unfortunately that mindset exists amongst a worrying number of people.

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#65

Post by expedition32 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #14
rendang wrote: post #10

One could probably think of dozens of reasonable arguments for avoiding LLM use, but this one is awful. If LLMs actually are able to get more work done with fewer people aka "firing people" that would be wonderful for humankind. If you disagree and like getting less work done with more people, you are welcome to forego tractors, dishwashers, the steam engine, and all the rest.

Yup. The problem was never with the technology replacing work, it was always with the social aspect of deploying it, that ends up pulling the rug under people whose livelihood depend on exchanging labor for money. The luddites didn't destroy automatic looms because they hated technology; they did it because losing their jobs and seeing their whole occupation disappear ruined their lives and lives of their families .…

You don't ban new technology you regulate it.

That is what happened with the 19th century factories.

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#66

Post by pu_pe »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #52
andrepd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They took our jerbs is a perfectly valid argument for people which face ruin without a jerb. Capitalism is not prepared nor willing to retrain people, drastically lower the workweek, or bring about a UBI sourced from the value of the commons. So indeed, if the promises of AI hold true, a catastrophe is incoming. Fortunately for us, the promises of AI CEOs are unlikely to be true.

This is the bit I get frustrated by - the need for jerbs at all. If we manage to replace all the workers with AI - that's awesome! We will obviously have to work out a system for everyone to get shelter, and food, and so on. But that post-scarcity utopia of everyone being able to do whatever they want with their time and not have to work, that's the goal, right? That's where we want to be. Jerbs are an interim nightm…

That's the optimistic take. The pessimistic one is that we, people who need to work jobs to survive, are not an intrinsic part of human existence and will be obsolete and/or left to die once we no longer have an economic purpose.

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#67

Post by elzbardico »

rendang wrote: post #56
goatlover wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this argument still work if LLMs end up increasing unemployment and making it a lot harder for graduates to find good jobs? Who is it good for in that case, the shareholders? It's nice if humans can always create more jobs, but that's not what the tech bros are promising investors. They're making claims about how AI is going to seriously reduce the need for human labor. Programming, writing and art are just the…

Because consumer demand is infinite, the only way to majorly and permanently increase unemployment is to completely automate all labor or maybe almost all. We have been automating away jobs for hundreds of years and unemployment is still ~4%

unemployment figures are a joke. What matters is how much able bodied people that could work, actually do have a job. And this number tells a completely different history from the feel good libertarian narratives such as this one.

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#68

Post by elzbardico »

kklisura wrote: post #39

> AI is now a tool for firing people In essence we have an ownership problem. If I own the AI, I can do my work in couple of hours and then some and then have rest of the day off to enjoy things I like. If the company owns AI - I'm out of work. The difference between a world of plenty and beauty vs the world of misery for many of us - is who owns the AI.

Well, maybe Marx was onto something with all that talking about production means ownership...

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#69

Post by munksbeer »

pu_pe wrote: post #66
marcus_holmes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the bit I get frustrated by - the need for jerbs at all. If we manage to replace all the workers with AI - that's awesome! We will obviously have to work out a system for everyone to get shelter, and food, and so on. But that post-scarcity utopia of everyone being able to do whatever they want with their time and not have to work, that's the goal, right? That's where we want to be. Jerbs are an interim nightm…

That's the optimistic take. The pessimistic one is that we, people who need to work jobs to survive, are not an intrinsic part of human existence and will be obsolete and/or left to die once we no longer have an economic purpose.

I can't see that being a realistic outcome. We're a long, long way from that, if it is possible. Billionaires are only billionaires because people buy their company shares. If no-one has any money and we're consigned to scrape in the dust for food, what will billionaires do? Who will buy their products, their shares?

Somehow there is always this huge leap between "Strong AI" -> stuff happens -> "about 10k people live in cloud cities and everyone else lives in the dirt".

I find it completely implausible.

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#70

Post by penguin_booze »

rendang wrote: post #10

One could probably think of dozens of reasonable arguments for avoiding LLM use, but this one is awful. If LLMs actually are able to get more work done with fewer people aka "firing people" that would be wonderful for humankind. If you disagree and like getting less work done with more people, you are welcome to forego tractors, dishwashers, the steam engine, and all the rest.

[dead]
Post reply on HN