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

611–620 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#611

Post by _DeadFred_ »

IgorPartola wrote: post #564

Let’s take this to its logical limit: imagine that AI gets so good that it can replace a lot of jobs en masse. The most popular job in about half of the US is truck drivers, and in the states where it is teachers, truck drivers are number 2. Let’s say we do get to not only self-driving trucks but self-driving trucks loaded by robotic warehouse workers. Let’s postulate that this becomes the norm and let’s say that alo…

They are never going to just lift everyone up. We could have done that for world hunger, we didn't. They gutted USAID because 38 billion, but sent 40 billion to Argentina because 'business'. They don't care if our living standards become the same as the third worlds. Just like we didn't care all that much that the third world had really rough lives. How do you currently think about the third world? That is about as much thought/concern as we will get. We are cooked if we leave it to 'THEM' be they business or government.

Re: Replacement.ai

#612

Post by _DeadFred_ »

elAhmo wrote: post #579
IgorPartola wrote: post #564

Let’s take this to its logical limit: imagine that AI gets so good that it can replace a lot of jobs en masse. The most popular job in about half of the US is truck drivers, and in the states where it is teachers, truck drivers are number 2. Let’s say we do get to not only self-driving trucks but self-driving trucks loaded by robotic warehouse workers. Let’s postulate that this becomes the norm and let’s say that alo…

You underestimate how creative are people with finding things to do. Society didn't collapse because we automated stuff that was done in the past almost exclusively by humans, such as agriculture. It won't if robots start driving trucks.

Past performance is not indicative of future results.

Everyone keeps saying 'no need to worry, no need for society to plan, because jobs happened in the past'. Like we should just put all our hope on these magic future jobs appearing. Plenty of countries exist where there aren't enough jobs. We aren't exempt from that as if some magic jobfairy is looking out for us.

Re: Replacement.ai

#613

Post by rhetocj23 »

happytoexplain wrote: post #67
AviationAtom wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always compare it to the age of the industrial revolution. I have no doubt you had stubborn old people saying: "Why would I need a machine to do what I can do just fine by hand??" Those people quickly found themselves at a disadvantage to those who choose not to fight change, but to embrace it and harness technological leaps to improve their productivity and output.

Most people are not in a position to choose whether to embrace or reject. An individual is generally in a position to be harmed by or helped by the new thing, based on their role and the time they are alive. Analogies are almost always an excuse to oversimplify. Just defend the thing on its own properties - not the properties of a conceptually similar thing that happened in the past.

Thank you for saying this.

Re: Replacement.ai

#614

Post by rhetocj23 »

hsavit1 wrote: post #53
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

I feel like technology should exist to enhance the human experience, not eliminate the human experience?

Yes.

Re: Replacement.ai

#615

Post by Lichtso »

sumeno wrote: post #337
candiddevmike wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life, uh, finds a way

Computers are not alive

Not yet, I agree, but who is to say they couldn't?

Limiting life to cell based biology is a somewhat lousy definition by the only example we know. I prefer the generalized definition in "What is Life?" by Erwin Schrödinger which currently draws the same line (at cellular biology) but could accommodate other forms of life too.

Re: Replacement.ai

#616

Post by grafmax »

leptons wrote: post #235
Kiro wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should be careful attributing too much idealism to it. The Luddites were not a unified movement and people had much more urgent concerns than thinking about technological progress from a sociocentric perspective. Considering the time period with the Napoleonic Wars as backdrop I don't think anyone can blame them for simply being angry and wanting to smash the machines that made them lose their job.

>wanting to smash the machines that made them lose their job. Wondering how long before people start setting datacenters on fire.

Hey maybe the problem isn’t the means of production (the data centers), but the mode of production.. capitalism.

Re: Replacement.ai

#617

Post by layer8 »

arisAlexis wrote: post #541
layer8 wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could illuminate us and elucidate the correct understanding.

Its just the reality. Ai has a big existential risk but also can drive innovation and the economy. Not very complicated. If you want to demonize Sam you can have 1000 other interpretations

Okay, that's the obvious meaning of the quote. How did people not "get" it? Or are you simply alluding to that they disagree with it?

Re: Replacement.ai

#618

Post by zzgo »

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…

> This is what government is for

In my home country, the people building the robots and job destroying AI have captured all three branches of government, and have been saying for over 40 years that they'd like to shrink government down to a size that they could drown it in a bathtub. The government can't be relied upon to do more than move its military into our cities to violently stifle dissent.

Re: Replacement.ai

#619

Post by mh- »

onraglanroad wrote: post #448
EgregiousCube wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't get it. Do you sign an offer letter or a contract? So the normal routine here is you get an offer, if you accept you get sent a contract which is signed by the employer, if it's all ok you also sign and then you get your start date. Is it different in the US or the same?

Exactly how it works in the US, yes.

Re: Replacement.ai

#620

Post by arthurcolle »

8note wrote: post #376
skybrian wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No take backs when they alienate 1-3 generations of workers though
Post reply on HN