71–80 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and salaries will reflect that. Hilariously naive.
Isn't the implication that salaries will go down, but your response is assuming the GP is naively thinking salaries will go up?
A couple friends have been laid off in fields similar, where AI is excelling and reducing demand for labor significantly, and it seems they’re mostly unaware and saying/thinking it’s the job market that is tough / time of year and maybe it will improve in 2026 as budgets are executed. I’ve not had the heart to tell them they will likely need to change careers. And that’s if they can, in my opinion the faster they rea…
I understand your reluctance. Yet I think, if you believe this, you should have that hard conversation sooner rather than later.
The problem isn't getting rid if people's jobs. Jobs are not inherently valuable. The problem is we have not built a society or economy where everyone can thrive regardless of their employment.
The problem isn't getting rid if people's jobs. Jobs are not inherently valuable. The problem is we have not built a society or economy where everyone can thrive regardless of their employment.
I'd go one step further: The problem is that we cannot build a fair and equitable socioeconomic capitalistic-driven society. Rather than complain about capitalism, I've written a near-future hard sci-fi novel that proposes and explores creating a society that doesn't rely on monetary capital to operate. My theory, which guides the plot, is that we have to look at the seeds of capitalism, namely food, and figure out h…
A couple friends have been laid off in fields similar, where AI is excelling and reducing demand for labor significantly, and it seems they’re mostly unaware and saying/thinking it’s the job market that is tough / time of year and maybe it will improve in 2026 as budgets are executed. I’ve not had the heart to tell them they will likely need to change careers. And that’s if they can, in my opinion the faster they rea…
> I’ve not had the heart to tell them they will likely need to change careers ... in my opinion the faster they realize that the better off they will be. I understand your reluctance. Yet I think, if you believe this, you should have that hard conversation sooner rather than later.
If a human component is required in addition to the cheaply machine-automated part, that belies the claim that 'most of the work has already been done'. The human part, turning it from slop to polished, becomes the most important part of the work, and then (and in any case) should be paid at human rates.
However, we live in a world where people have to compete to survive. Since a major portion of the task is automated, all of a sudden there are many available copywriting editors looking for work. The abundance tends to drive down the wage on sites like Fiverr.
And that's why unions are so important!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world changes and jobs cease to exist. Historically there hasn't been a great deal of support for those who lose their jobs to change. While there are issues that are AI specific, I don't feel as if this is one of them. This happens for many reasons, of which AI is just one. In turn, I think this means that the way to address the problem of job loss should not be AI soecific. If it turns out that AI does not crea…
> The world changes We change the world. It's not happening to you; you're doing it. You're doing it right now with your parent comment - you're not an observer on the sideline, you're in the thick of it, doing it, your every action - my every action - has consequences. Who will we be in our communities and societies? > I have read pieces nearly a hundred years old saying this You can read pieces 100 years old talkin…
Humans are reactive and antisocial so the idea of a “common good” would require two things humans can’t do: Create sustainable commons and act as though we are all equal
Any position that assumes it’s possible is not even aspirational it’s naive
If a human component is required in addition to the cheaply machine-automated part, that belies the claim that 'most of the work has already been done'. The human part, turning it from slop to polished, becomes the most important part of the work, and then (and in any case) should be paid at human rates.
The problem isn't getting rid if people's jobs. Jobs are not inherently valuable. The problem is we have not built a society or economy where everyone can thrive regardless of their employment.
That's like saying "the problem isn't the unmaintainable cost of healthcare, it's that we haven't eliminated all diseases and aging". I.e. the latter is a long way off, and might not ever be 100% feasible, so it's horrifying and inhumane to imply we should allow the suffering caused by the former in the meantime.
Compare with something like unemployment benefits. The cost of benefits can be covered by taxes (which unlike the example above) can be progressively targeted and redistribute wealth to those most in need.
A social safety net is progressive, feasible (countries all around the world have them), and does not hinder technological or economic progress. What are the alternatives?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose of disclosure is to allow people to make their own decisions about how trustworthy I am as a source of information. If I started rejecting access to early models over a desire to avoid conflicts of interest my coverage would be less useful to people. I think most of my regular readers understand that. I was responsible for one of the first widely read reports on the ethics of model training back in 2022 w…
This is a disappointing thread to find - HN is usually a little more thoughtful than throwing around insults like "insufferable AI cheerleader". If I can provide a different perspective, I find your writing on LLMs to be useful. I've referenced your writing to coworkers in an effort to be a little more rigorous when it comes to how we use these new (often unintuitive) tools. I think the level of disclosure you do is…