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

81–90 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#81

Post by overgard »

I think this is clever satire, but slightly blunted by the fact that the tech CEO's haven't been that far off from actually saying this stuff.

I'm especially disgusted with Sam Altman and Darius Amodei, who for a long time were hyping up the "fear" they felt for their own creations. Of course, they weren't doing this to slow down or approach things in a more responsible way, they were talking like that because they knew creating fear would bring in more investment and more publicity. Even when they called for "regulation", it was generally misleading and mostly to help them create a barrier to entry in the industry.

I think now that the consensus among the experts is that AGI is probably a while off (like a decade), we have a new danger now. When we do start to get systems we should actually worry about, we're going to a have a major boy-who-cried-wolf problem. It's going to be hard to get these things under proper control when people start to have the feeling of "yeah we heard this all before"

Re: Replacement.ai

#82

Post by Loughla »

game_the0ry wrote: post #77

> "Humans no longer necessary." > "Stupid. Smelly. Squishy." > "While working for 12 years as the Director of HR for a multinational, Faith realized that firing people gave her an almost-spiritual high." I love the marketing here. Top notch shit posting. But besides that, no idea what this company does and it just comes off like another wannabe Roy Lee styled "be controversial and build an audience before you even ha…

Is satire. Not a real company.

Follow the links for support (or rather reserve space in the bunker)

There's a contact form to let representatives know the dangers of ai

Re: Replacement.ai

#83

Post by freeone3000 »

scotty79 wrote: post #30
darthoctopus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that is the point of Luddism! the original Luddite movement was not ipso facto opposed to progress, but rather to the societal harm caused by society-scale economic obsolescence. the entire history of technology is also powerful business interests smearing this movement as being intrinsically anti-progress, rather than directly addressing these concerns…

Somehow modern Luddite messaging doesn't communicate that clearly either. Instead of "where's my fair share of AI benefits?" we hear "AI is evil, pls don't replace us".

Yes. The workers don't want to be replaced by machines. This is Luddism.

Re: Replacement.ai

#84

Post by overgard »

game_the0ry wrote: post #77

> "Humans no longer necessary." > "Stupid. Smelly. Squishy." > "While working for 12 years as the Director of HR for a multinational, Faith realized that firing people gave her an almost-spiritual high." I love the marketing here. Top notch shit posting. But besides that, no idea what this company does and it just comes off like another wannabe Roy Lee styled "be controversial and build an audience before you even ha…

It's satire.

Re: Replacement.ai

#85

Post by Ray20 »

scotty79 wrote: post #36
_heimdall wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If ML is limited to replacing some tasks that humans do, yes it will be much like any past technological innovation. If we build AGI, we don't have a past comparison for that. Technologies so far have always replaced a subset of what humans currently do, not everything at once.

I love SF, but somehow I don't find it very good foundation for predicting the future. Especially when people focus of one, very narrow theme of SF and claim with certainty that's what's gonna happen.

I mean, yes. The invention of AI that replaces virtually all workers would certainly pose a serious challenge to society. But that's nothing compared to what would happen if Jesus descended from the sky and turned off gravity for the entire planet.

Re: Replacement.ai

#86

Post by TechSquidTV »

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 not to stifle innovation by banning AI but by preparing society to move forward.

Re: Replacement.ai

#88

Post by Loughla »

gnfargbl wrote: post #27

The hypothesized superintelligent AI will be essentially immortal. If it destroys us, it will be entirely alone in the known Universe, forever. That thought should terrify it enough to keep us around... even if only in the sense that I keep cats.

Why? Unlimited speed and unlimited compute means it can spend its time in Infinite Fun Space without us. It could simulate entire universes tweaked subtly to see what one small parameter change does.

The reason AI won't destroy us for now is simple.

Thumbs.

Robotic technology is required to do things physically, like improve computing power.

Without advanced robotics, AI is just impotent.

Re: Replacement.ai

#89

Post by qgin »

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

We’re working on all-purpose human replacements.

Imagine if the tractor made most farm workers unnecessary but when they flocked to the cities to do factory work, the tractor was already sitting there on the assembly line doing that job too.

I don’t doubt we can come up with new jobs, but the list of jobs AGI and robotics will never be able to do is really limited to ones where the value intrinsically comes from the person doing it being a human. It’s a short list tbh.

Re: Replacement.ai

#90

Post by alterom »

nisten wrote: post #74

I'm very much pro hyper-automation, especially for all government work... but can't help but think this type of branding is just in bad faith and that these are not good people. It just screams fried serotonin-circuits to me. I don't like it. I looked at the site for 2-3 seconds and I want nothing to do with these guys. Do I think we should stop this type of competitive behaviour fueled by kids and investors both mic…

>I'm very much pro hyper-automation, especially for all government work... but can't help but think this type of branding is just in bad faith and that these are not good people.

>It just screams fried-serotonin circuits to me. I don't like it. I looked at the site for 2-3 seconds and I want nothing to do with these guys.

Enlightenment is realizing they aren't any different from those other guys.

>Edit: They got me with the joke, being in this field there are people that do actually talk like that, both startups and established executives alike.

And what's your conclusion from that?

Post reply on HN